I’m feeling misunderstood. What did I write?
• Do I understand correctly that this algebra of data thing can essentially be represented as a tree (or wood)? So I asked if I understood correctly. I wanted to understand. Not suggest improvement. I asked if it can essentially be represented as such. Not if it “is” a tree or wood in any way. Neither did I assert, I asked. • Is this “translation” of the concept of ordinal fractions adequate? Another question, I wanted to understand. Not to suggest improvement. • your example doesn’t fit the hierarcical layout (multiple instances for 11, for example, so 11 isn’t a category even though there are things like 111) There’s a hidden critique here: In the paper, one gets the idea of a one-to-one correspondence. But merely a critique, without suggestions. Because I did not understand if you meant the concept as I found it in the paper, or the one I found in the CREDO example. The hidden critique was meant to be a hidden question: which one did you mean? I wanted to understand. Not to suggest improvement. • another aspect that didn’t match the specification as I understood it Pretty much the same: another hidden critique, another hidden question. Which one was meant? Talking about how I understand things. I wanted to understand. Not to suggest improvement. [I wrote “I think that’s wrong.” so I always wrote about my personal understanding, not about “how things ought to be”, viz suggesting improvement] • found another quirk: your solution depends on the order of entry This is merely an observation. I wrote down what is the case. And it differs from most any other form of database where the order of entries doesn’t matter at all. See next point • I understand the fractional digits to be meant to encode both (semantic) structure and order (or else the prayer wouldn’t be the best kind of example). Again, talking about how I understand things. Because I want to understand. Not to suggest improvement. The prayer isn’t a good example except if you actually want to say “Look! This relies on the order of entry.” After my first attempt, I got the correct words, but a permutation of the intended result. This wouldn’t bother anyone issuing an SQL query for a relational DB for they expect the order to not matter. In your example, order does matter, and the way you provided ordinal fractions didn’t seem to make for a unique obvious way to retrieve entries other than – the way I did which gave a not-intended answer – the way you did: by order of entry, which is definitely not what you want when managing a database and order matters So I wondered if there is a hidden way I just didn’t see or if the example is in some way – frankly, a bad one. Keep your “Understand before improving.” for people who try the opposite. I feel you wronged me. So I’m looking forward to answers to the questions I raised rather than being told both falsehoods about what I did and scholarly reproof by a Someone. You’re looking for J code shorter than the BASIC one? Didn’t you take a look at Ian’s marvellous translation? Nor at my attempt? They both are good starting points for building shorter solutions, I think. Go ahead! … and then there’s a flaw with your combinatorics. First of all, “one in thousand” for three properties doesn’t for sure make for “one in a billion” for their conjunction except if the properties are independent. In your case, they aren’t. Plus, this Latin text is well-known all around the world and read and understood by way more than “one in thousand”. In essence, you’re talking about a superset of the community of Danish BASIC programmers knowing some BASIC church Latin. Far more than six people. So you want to be special? Go burn the Capitol, and Trump will call you “very special”. I feel a need to articulate my disrespect. … I understand German, Latin, and some J (amoung a couple of other languages, both natural and artificial). Now that must make me very very special in your opinion. Hauke Am 09.01.21 um 21:11 schrieb 'Bo Jacoby' via Programming: > Hauke is suggesting improvements. I have worked with ordinal fractions for > forty years. Understand before improving. -- ---------------------- mail written using NEO neo-layout.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
