4,502
edits
Talk:Partition representations: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Talk:Partition representations (view source)
Revision as of 10:38, 11 September 2022
, 10:38, 11 September 2022Text replacement - "</source>" to "</syntaxhighlight>"
No edit summary |
m (Text replacement - "</source>" to "</syntaxhighlight>") |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
I see. Go ahead and change it. [[User:Adám Brudzewsky|Adám Brudzewsky]] ([[User talk:Adám Brudzewsky|talk]]) | I see. Go ahead and change it. [[User:Adám Brudzewsky|Adám Brudzewsky]] ([[User talk:Adám Brudzewsky|talk]]) | ||
I meant that match should be taken to ignore prototypes recursively (this is the case in some array languages, such as J). Maybe this is unclear, but "ignoring zero-length divisions" is also unclear: if two partitions differ only in that one has an extra zero-length division at the end, should they be the same? | |||
Since we're partitioning vectors, only zero-length divisions can be [[empty]]. I've clarified also that a partition can't be empty. | |||
Part of the problem is that you seem to be using [[prototype]] to mean [[Type]]. The prototype of an array <syntaxhighlight lang=apl inline>A</syntaxhighlight> has the same structure as <syntaxhighlight lang=apl inline>⊃A</syntaxhighlight>, so only simple scalars can match their own prototypes. It doesn't make sense to call an array a prototype in isolation: an array has a prototype but no array is a prototype. | |||
Not at all. I've understood prototypes since 1982 or 83. "If two arrays match their prototypes also match" is unquestionable. What I found questionable was the the phrase "ignoring prototypes". Does it refer to sivisions that happen to be identical to the prototype of the partition, which may or may not be of zero-length depending on whether the first element of ⍺ is greater than one or not, or does it actually mean a zero-length -division? i.e. one "inserted" [[User:Phil Last|Phil Last]] ([[User talk:Phil Last|talk]]) 14:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
There's no such thing as an "inserted division". | |||
--[[User:Marshall|Marshall]] ([[User talk:Marshall|talk]]) 15:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
If the representation you were advocating contains a two in ⍺ rather than a one I should describe the division immediately prior to that which contains the datum in ⍵ corresponding to that two as having been "inserted".[[User:Phil Last|Phil Last]] ([[User talk:Phil Last|talk]]) 14:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
''"should they be the same?"'' Your question, which you don't answer. I should say NO! | |||
I apologise to you both Adam and Marshall for wasting your time and mine. I should be more careful to examine the worth of a sentence in its wider context before worrying about its minutiae. The sentence I mentioned is only the first of a paragraph whose only meaningful content is ''"The partition representations discussed below are ways of encoding structure;"''. The rest can safely be ignored. [[User:Phil Last|Phil Last]] ([[User talk:Phil Last|talk]]) 14:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC) | |||