On 5 February 2012 23:24, Brian Schott <schott.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kip may be onto something that at least for me shows a little of the > problem of going from an expression with @ to one without. For example > in the first 3 execution below, the first two produce the same result, > but the third, does not. > (|: @ *:) i. 2 2 > 0 1 > 4 9 > .................. > To me, the way to make the errant third one above conform is to > ..................
I believe the purpose of Kip's remark was to point out that sometimes @ may not look like a composition. But of course it is, only it acts in accordance with the ranks of its (verb) arguments. So, within (|: @ *:), as *: is of rank 0, |: also acts as if it is of rank 0, and does not actually transpose anything, as if it is absent. In order to really transpose the matrix in the example, we can say e.g. (|: @ (*:"_)) or (|: @: *:) . ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
