✳flâneur — a map of the web's best reading

Structural vs. Mathematical “Under” | Dyalog Blog

dyalog.com · 828 words · saved by 1 readers

The APL Farm has recently hosted discussions about the proposed under operator, asking “why Dyalog hasn’t implemented it a long time ago”. I claimed that an important reason was that Roger Hui wasn’t a big fan of the proposed extension known as “structural under”. Stefan Kruger then asked me why that was so. Since Roger isn’t able to respond himself, I’ll do my best to explain my own understanding of the issues. For anyone not familiar with the concept of under, or dual as it was known when first implemented in SHARP APL, it is an operator that provides a way to express a common mathematical pattern, where a computation or proof is simplified by first translating the input domain, applying a function, and then performing the inverse transformation. For example, if we use the symbol ⍢ to denote under, have the translation function as the right operand, and the function that applies to the translated domain as the left, then we could use +⍢⍟ to demonstrate that multiplication is equivale

The APL Farm has recently hosted discussions about the proposed under operator, asking “why Dyalog hasn’t implemented it a long time ago”. I claimed that an important reason was that Roger Hui wasn’t a big fan of the proposed extension known as “structural under”. Stefan Kruger then asked me why that was so. Since Roger isn’t able to respond himself, I’ll do my best to explain my own understanding of the issues. For anyone not familiar with the concept of under , or dual as it was known when first implemented in SHARP APL , it is an operator that

Explore this link on the map →

related reading