19
edits
Talk:Partition representations: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Talk:Partition representations (view source)
Revision as of 14:41, 30 January 2020
, 14:41, 30 January 2020no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Part of the problem is that you seem to be using [[prototype]] to mean [[Type]]. The prototype of an array <source lang=apl inline>A</source> has the same structure as <source lang=apl inline>⊃A</source>, 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. | Part of the problem is that you seem to be using [[prototype]] to mean [[Type]]. The prototype of an array <source lang=apl inline>A</source> has the same structure as <source lang=apl inline>⊃A</source>, 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 | 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". | There's no such thing as an "inserted division". | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
''"should they be the same?"'' Your question, which you don't answer. I should say NO! | ''"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) | |||