>> @: (or &:) is said to produce a verb of infinite ranks (of which, >> here, we are only interested in the monadic case). As I understand >> it, this can only be achieved by modifying the ranks of the arguments >> and/or the rank of the result. > > The rank of a verb is a part of the definition of the verb, which > makes it independent of any arguments.
You are apparently misreading. I've been discussing conjunctions and the ranks of _their_ arguments. Those arguments are verbs. I said nothing about the arguments of any verbs. >> Whatever it is, @: is different from @. > > Note that @. and @ are different words in J, with entirely different meanings. Aren't you misreading the fullstop at the end of a sentence as something else? I never mentioned @. in my post. >> Therefore, if f@g (again, monadic) is the composition >> in the usual mathematical sense (as asserted in the DoJ), >> then f@:g is not it. > > The truth of this statement depends on the definitions of f and g, and > on the domain under consideration. Not at all. The truth of the sentence (especially in view of its preceding context) depends on whether f@:g is equivalent to f@g for any pair of arguments f,g. Which it isn't. Considering particular cases for f,g does not help it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
