The obvious tacit expression would be the one generated by 13
:'u1(u2(u3(u4(y))))'

But note that this may generate different expressions, depending on
the values of u1, u2, u3 and/or u4. (The default behavior, if they are
not defined, is to assume that they are all verbs.)

Thanks,

-- 
Raul


On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Erling Hellenäs
<[email protected]> wrote:
> u1(u2(u3(u4(y)))) was the mathematical description of the strawman
> algorithm. We are still in a discussion about tacit J. The expression you
> are opposing is this one:
>
>
> "As far as I can understand the pattern of the strawman, [: u1 [:u2 [: u3 [:
> u4 ] , is the only expression in tacit J with the meaning of 4  monadic
> verbs ux in sequence. All other similar expressions have a more complex
> meaning. Correct me if I'm wrong."
>
> Bob Thierrault says:
>
> I believe it could also be expressed as
>
> u1 @: u2 @: u3 @: u4 @: ]"_
>
> Cheers, bob
>
> You say he is right:
>
> "Yes, and the @:]"_ is redundant for any and all verbs u1 u2 u3 and u4.
> And ([: u1 [:u2 u3@:u4) is another example equivalent..."
>
> I think I proved you both wrong with this:
>
> There is a considerable difference in memory allocation indicating
> differences between these expressions. If the first version creates
> three copies, the second seems to create five.
>
>
> ts'([: - [: - [: - [: - ])i. 100000000'
>
> 1.45991 3.22123e9
>
> ts'(- @: - @: - @: - )i. 100000000'
>
> 1.48942 5.36871e9
>
> And this:
>
> Its is some redundant calls to the @: conjunction that makes the difference?
>
> ts'(- @: - @: - @: - )i. 100000000'
>
> 1.56681 5.36871e9
>
> c=: 2 :(':';'[: u v')
>
> ts'(- c - c - c - )i. 100000000'
>
> 1.56479 5.36871e9
>
> It is unclear which tacit J expression you mean by u1(u2(u3(u4(y)))).
>
> /Erling
>
>
>
> On 2016-08-05 22:22, Raul Miller wrote:
>>
>> If you want the algorithm of u1(u2(u3(u4(y)))) and not any expression
>> with the same result, then you should be using u1(u2(u3(u4(y)))) and
>> not some other expression.
>>
>> That said, you might want to wrap it in verb def '' (with the
>> expression going inside the quotes) so that you can have a verb
>> definition.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to