The exploit I had in mind for & is more difficult than I thought, if possible. This seems weird though:
f=. ''`(+/@:[)@. f +/@:[@. ┌──────────────┬──┐ │┌────────────┐│@.│ ││┌─────┬──┬─┐││ │ │││┌─┬─┐│@:│[│││ │ ││││+│/││ │ │││ │ │││└─┴─┘│ │ │││ │ ││└─────┴──┴─┘││ │ │└────────────┘│ │ └──────────────┴──┘ (i.2 3) u 0 0 0 (i.2 3) v 0 0 0 (i.2 3) u f 0 3 12 (i.2 3) v f 0 |rank error | (i.2 3) v f 0 |[-0] Puzzle 2 ( I don't have an answer yet) Can you write v such that 0 = (v i.2 3) -: (]&v i.2 3) The argument doesn't necessarily have to be i.2 3. Obviously, as I messed up earlier, v and ]&v have to be called monadically or you would not expect them to be the same. Note that a monadic version of ]@v should be equivalent. On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Thomas Costigliola <[email protected]>wrote: > Gosh, sorry for all the noise on this thread. The previous example was not > what it was meant to be. > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Thomas Costigliola <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Sorry, the last message was incomplete... >> >> 1 2 v 1 2 ,: 3 4 >> 2 3 >> 3 4 >> >> 4 5 >> 5 6 >> 1 2 ]&v 1 2 ,: 3 4 >> 1 2 >> 3 4 >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Thomas Costigliola >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> There are other follies to be had... >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Jose Mario Quintana < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Thomas Costigliola <[email protected] >>>> >wrote: >>>> By the way, is there a convention on this forum for hiding spoilers in >>>> posts? >>>> >>>> >>>> I guess the broad convention is just to give a warning; I like to say >>>> something as: >>>> >>>> >>>> Such a verb v comes in... >>>> >>>> ,. @: |. @: i. 51 >>>> 50 >>>> 49 >>>> 48 >>>> 47 >>>> 46 >>>> 45 >>>> 44 >>>> 43 >>>> 42 >>>> 41 >>>> 40 >>>> 39 >>>> 38 >>>> 37 >>>> 36 >>>> 35 >>>> 34 >>>> 33 >>>> 32 >>>> 31 >>>> 30 >>>> 29 >>>> 28 >>>> 27 >>>> 26 >>>> 25 >>>> 24 >>>> 23 >>>> 22 >>>> 21 >>>> 20 >>>> 19 >>>> 18 >>>> 17 >>>> 16 >>>> 15 >>>> 14 >>>> 13 >>>> 12 >>>> 11 >>>> 10 >>>> 9 >>>> 8 >>>> 7 >>>> 6 >>>> 5 >>>> 4 >>>> 3 >>>> 2 >>>> 1 >>>> 0 >>>> >>>> v=. +"_2 0 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Thomas Costigliola <[email protected] >>>> >wrote: >>>> >>>> > By the way, is there a convention on this forum for hiding spoilers in >>>> > posts? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Thomas Costigliola < >>>> [email protected] >>>> > >wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > Got it now. But I still need some rest to really understand it. >>>> > > >>>> > > Here is more weirdness: >>>> > > >>>> > > 1 2 ]@v 1 2 3 >>>> > > 2 3 >>>> > > 3 4 >>>> > > 4 5 >>>> > > 1 2 v 1 2 3 >>>> > > |length error: v >>>> > > | 1 2 v 1 2 3 >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > >> yes. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> It's not a special-code trick. v is a verb. ] could be anything, >>>> and >>>> > >> the same weirdness would result. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> 1 2 v 2 3 >>>> > >> 3 5 >>>> > >> 1 2 (v) 2 3 >>>> > >> 3 5 >>>> > >> 1 2 ]@v 2 3 >>>> > >> 3 4 >>>> > >> 4 5 >>>> > >> 1 2 ]@(v) 2 3 >>>> > >> 3 4 >>>> > >> 4 5 >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Henry Rich >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> On 6/7/2013 6:43 PM, Dan Bron wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> My question #2 had two clauses with opposite senses (i.e. it was >>>> an >>>> > >>> either/or question), so an unqualified "no" is an ambiguous >>>> response. >>>> > Let >>>> > >>> me phrase it as a strict yes/no question: >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> Does x ]@(v) y necessarily produce the same result as x ]@v y ? >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> I'm trying to prune out lines of inquiry which would be >>>> unsurprising or >>>> > >>> at least mundane. Since adverbs can see their entire verbal >>>> argument, >>>> > >>> phrases like ]@+/ and ]@(+/) are fundamentally different, even if >>>> they >>>> > >>> produce the same results when applied to arguments. In short, if >>>> my v >>>> > is >>>> > >>> given access to the ]@ then all sorts of doors are opened (this is >>>> > actually >>>> > >>> how most special code is implemented) and the puzzle is not so >>>> > interesting. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> If, on the other hand, we're taking about a ]@(v) which differs >>>> from >>>> > >>> plain (v), that is very interesting; and if the DoJ does in fact >>>> > legitimize >>>> > >>> it (or at least fail to prohibit it), then it is fascinating! >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> -Dan >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> Please excuse typos; composed on a handheld device. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> 1 yes; 2 no; 3 not exactly specified; guess incorrect >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> Henry Rich >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> On 6/7/2013 4:36 PM, Dan Bron wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>>> Three questions: >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> #1 Is v necessarily a verb? >>>> > >>>>> #2 Does the effect depend upon v being anonymous, or will >>>> it >>>> > work >>>> > >>>>> if v is assigned to a name and/or wrapped in parens? >>>> > >>>>> #3 Is the effect indicated, contraindicated, or >>>> unspecified by >>>> > the >>>> > >>>>> Dictionary? >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> -Dan >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> PS: My initial guess is this is almost certainly a bug >>>> introduced by >>>> > >>>>> some >>>> > >>>>> special-code optimization. >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> > >>>>> From: programming-bounces@forums.**jsoftware.com< >>>> > [email protected]> >>>> > >>>>> [mailto:programming-bounces@**forums.jsoftware.com< >>>> > [email protected]>] >>>> > >>>>> On Behalf Of Henry Rich >>>> > >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 3:14 PM >>>> > >>>>> To: Programming forum >>>> > >>>>> Subject: [Jprogramming] A puzzle >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> For what sort of v does >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> ]@v >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> give different results than >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> v >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> ? No side effects. >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> 1 2 v 1 2 >>>> > >>>>> 2 4 >>>> > >>>>> 1 2 ]@v 1 2 >>>> > >>>>> 2 3 >>>> > >>>>> 3 4 >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> Henry Rich >>>> > >>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >>>> > >>>>> ---------- >>>> > >>>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/** >>>> > >>>>> forums.htm <http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >>>> > >>>>> ---------- >>>> > >>>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/** >>>> > >>>>> forums.htm <http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >>>> > >>>> ---------- >>>> > >>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/** >>>> > >>>> forums.htm <http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >>>> > >>> ---------- >>>> > >>> For information about J forums see >>>> > http://www.jsoftware.com/**forums.htm< >>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >>>> > >> ---------- >>>> > >> For information about J forums see >>>> > http://www.jsoftware.com/**forums.htm< >>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm> >>>> > >> >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > For information about J forums see >>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>>> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>>> >>> >>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
