In my previous post I wrote,
"First I thought that only atomic representations of trains of verbs were
allowed"
but I should have written instead,
"First I thought that only nouns representing trains of verbs under de
adverb train (`:6) were allowed"
that is, for instance, ((u`v)`w) where u,v, and w are verbs is valid.
(I should stop writing posts to the forum and watching fights
simultaneously.)
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 12:35 AM Jose Mario Quintana <
jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> < Though that lr bug caused the problems with f. that we both have noted
in the past.
>
> Right, I remember; however, I think the issue reverts back to what,
officially, a gerund is, or more generally what are admissible arguments to
train (`:6), agenda (@.), and tie (`) (and their products) because if an
entity is not valid a faulty linear representation of it might not be
regarded as a bug.
>
> On the one hand, the dictionary was ambiguous (and permissive in my mind)
on this subject but my understanding is that NuVoc is nowadays the official
documentation; thus, a gerund is "the atomic representation of a verb, or a
list thereof" (which among other things implies that your isgerund verb
might need to be revised or renamed). After reading the tie (`) entry is
not entirely clear to me what are valid values for n and m. First I
thought that only atomic representations of trains of verbs were allowed,
but apparently '' is also considered valid in some instances. Perhaps, for
example, the use of (3 ar) in,
>
> ((3 ar)`*`])
> ┌─────┬─┬─┐
> │┌─┬─┐│*│]│
> ││0│3││ │ │
> │└─┴─┘│ │ │
> └─────┴─┴─┘
>
> ((3 ar)`*`]) (`:6)
> 3 * ]
>
> is invalid because (3 ar) is not the atomic representation of a verb. In
addition,
>
> + ((3 ar)`) (`(5 ar))
> ┌─────┬─┬─────┐
> │┌─┬─┐│+│┌─┬─┐│
> ││0│3││ ││0│5││
> │└─┴─┘│ │└─┴─┘│
> └─────┴─┴─────┘
>
> seems to be an invalid use of ties even if only because
> + ((3 ar)`) (`(5 ar)) (`:6)
> 8
>
> is a noun rather than a verb.
>
> On the other hand, there has been an effort in the past to correct
similar faulty linear representations that have been pestering some of us
for many years. Maybe they are invalid but tolerated; several years ago I
wrote the following tacit double adverb (hg) which allows one to produce a
wide class of tacit adverbs by reducing the task of tacit adverbial
programming to tacit verbal programming. When I wrote hg Dan and I
thoutght it was kosher but nowadays apparently it is not,
>
o=. @:
> c=."_
> ar=. 5!:1@:<
> d=. (a0=. `'') (a1=. (@:[) ((<'&')`) (`:6)) (a2=. (`(<(":0);_)) (`:6))
> av=. ((ar'a0')`) (`(ar'a1')) (`(ar'a2') ) (`:6)
> NB. Adverbing a monadic verb (adv)
> assert 1 4 9 -: 1 2 3 *: av
> aw=. < o ((0;1;0)&{::) NB. Fetching the atomic representation
> d=. (a3=. (@: (aw f.)) ('av'f.)) (a4=. "_) (a5=. `:6)
> a6=. ((( ar'a4') ; ] ; ( ar'a3')"_) ('av'f.)) (`:6)
>
> NB. hg...
> hg=. `((ar'a6')`(ar'a5')) (`:6)
> assert (*: 1 2 3) -: 1 2 3 ((<'*:') ; ] )
hg
> assert (*/ 1 2 3) -: * (< , ((<'/')c))
hg 1 2 3
> assert ((*: - +/\)1 2 3) -: (*:`(+/\)) (0&{ , (<'-') ,
1&{)@:(('';1)&{::) hg 1 2 3
> erase'a0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 av aw d'
>
> A simple application is to produce a tacit version of your ar adverb
(mildly tested),
>
> an=. <@:((,'0') ,&:< ])f. NB. Atomizing words (monadic verb)
> ar=. an f.hg
>
> A shorter tacit version of ar exists but the point is that hg can produce
a tacit version of the adverb ar as well as lots of other tacit adverbs.
The linear representations of both adverbs (hg and ar) are faulty; that is,
running on J807, I have not tried with J901.
>
> P.S. I merely have a mild academic interest on this matter since I
neither use J901 nor J807 for any important work.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:04 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <
programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
> >
> > Henry reported (I think/thought) fixing this display (lr) bug within
the j9 cycle.
> >
> > Though that lr bug caused the problems with f. that we both have noted
in the past.
> >
> > There are 2 separate display bugs with "partial gerunds" (bound adverb
with `)
> >
> > ((<(,'0');3)`) NB. not equivalent to displayed result
> >
> > <(,'0');3`
> >
> > Any other adverb "trained" with partial gerund creates a more obvious
distortion
> >
> > /((<(,'0');3)`)
> >
> > /(3`)
> >
> > though it still works (internally it is not messed up as display)
> >
> > +(/((<(,'0');3)`))
> >
> > ┌─────┬───────┐
> >
> > │┌─┬─┐│┌─┬───┐│
> >
> > ││0│3│││/│┌─┐││
> >
> > │└─┴─┘││ ││+│││
> >
> > │ ││ │└─┘││
> >
> > │ │└─┴───┘│
> >
> > └─────┴───────┘
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
