Hi Brian,
Even though the subject of this message is the Behead video, I think that you
are referring to the process that I used in the Head video. The concern I have
with your approach of dropping the explanation in terms of from and take (and I
did look at that option in development) was that as your description suggests,
there is a lot of hand-waving that shows up when you look at it as special
cases for atoms and empty arguments. That all goes away when you use 0 { 1 {. y
and all cases are handled the same way. It is something that I really liked
about the way that the Nuvoc explanation approached the issue.
I also think that part of it is that I have put out a monadic Head Video before
I did the dyadic take or from videos. I am not sure that you noticed it, but as
the Head video plays a link to the Items video shows up in the upper right of
the Head video when items are introduced. It was not there in the first
version (the Items video had not been created), but Youtube provides this
functionality. Also, I can provide references for the different verbs that are
part of the video when I use the lab form (the Head lab used the fit
conjunction in its final steps, but I should also add Take and From, as I used
them as well).
In any case those are my reasons for my approach to including take and from in
the explanation of Head.
Thanks for the attention that you are giving the videos, it really does help me
clarify my choices.
Cheers, bob
> On Jun 4, 2019, at 5:32 AM, Brian Schott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> Would you consider an alternative which does not even mention take and
> from; maybe dealing with the non-empty cases as just single step head's and
> then mentioning (without take and from) extra requirements of the empty
> cases and perhaps mentioning some peculiarity of the scalar case? That may
> not work, of course, as you would know much better than I.
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:15 PM Brian Schott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>> I am having trouble with the "head" video, because it uses both the "take"
>> and the "from" verbs without giving their usage in depth. I see why all 3
>> are needed because they are slightly different. For simple cases with
>> items, 0&{ and {. are identical; but for cases where there are no items
>> (like i. 0 and i. 0 2 ) 0&{ fails and 1&{. is required first to construct
>> an item before 0&{ is executed. I cannot think of a better way to deal with
>> this issue than the way you have, but maybe distinguishing between
>> arguments with and without items separately might work.
>>
>> On another note, I wish you could find an alternative to the
>> right-curly-brace you use in some cases because it can be confused with
>> amend.
>>
>> I don't know whether a blue border for an atom is better than a blue
>> background. And this gets caught up in my mentioning itemless arguments,
>> because I guess an atom is itemless and yet 0&{ works for atoms. Maybe the
>> distinction is between arguments non-empty and empty arguments like '',
>> i.0, i. 0 2.
>>
>> It's beginning to seem as if I dancing on the head of a pin, to quote Raul.
>>
>> Your videos are great.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 12:34 PM 'robert therriault' via Programming <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Brian,
>>>
>>> Based on your thoughts on the backgrounds I redid the video for Head so
>>> that the representation of the atom becomes a solid blue background instead
>>> of ring when it is made into a one item list.
>>>
>>> Hopefully this consistency will help the understanding as we move
>>> forward.
>>>
>>> The new video is posted here. https://youtu.be/FV9G5zeRnPg
>>>
>>> Cheers, bob
>>>
>>>> On Jun 2, 2019, at 8:45 AM, 'robert therriault' via Programming <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Brian, that is great feedback.
>>>>
>>>> It was the true intent and you are right that I should mention it.
>>>>
>>>> Also, the reason that the atom example has only a blue border is that
>>> the shape of an atom is empty, whereas the solid blue indicate the shape of
>>> the items. The blue border differentiates it from the list of length 1
>>> which would be a solid blue background. The challenge that I face is that I
>>> don't want to get too far into the weeds when I am explaining something
>>> like Behead. That was one of the reasons that I made up an Items video, as
>>> it explains the concepts that are foundational to the explanation of verbs
>>> that operate on items.
>>>>
>>>> Your third point is actually why I included the empty examples. Often
>>> they are mentioned only in passing, when I think that the difference
>>> between items that are empty and no items is a foundational concept. If
>>> your confusion is a result of not being clear on the distinction, then I am
>>> okay with that if it leads to understanding. If the presentation confuses
>>> the issue further, then I have work to do. I am going to take another look
>>> at that at those empty examples. I did think about the further explanation
>>> of i. 0 2 and i. 2 0, but again that would bring a whole other verb into
>>> the discussion and I thought it better to just have s20 and s02 be what
>>> they are because I don't think for these purposes that it matters how they
>>> came to be that way.
>>>>
>>>> Just my thoughts. Any responses/disagreements would be welcome, as that
>>> is how these videos will improve.
>>>>
>>>> The nice thing about making these videos into labs is that I can
>>> address some of this in the examples and the text surrounding the video. I
>>> hope to have the Behead lab up later today and I will certainly think about
>>> your points as I develop it. Of course, if the confusion is deep enough
>>> then the solution is to redo the video!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, bob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> (B=) <-----my sig
>> Brian Schott
>>
>
>
> --
> (B=) <-----my sig
> Brian Schott
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
