I am extremely allergic to explicit adverbs :) However, I think the
sentence u^:_1 b. _1 provides the name of the proverb, or its linear
representation if it is unnamed (there might be easier ways). For example,
test {{ u^:_1 b. _1 }}
test
datatype test {{ u^:_1 b. _1 }}
literal
+/@:*: {{ u^:_1 b. _1 }}
+/@:*:
datatype +/@:*: {{ u^:_1 b. _1 }}
literal
I hope it helps.
On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 4:55 PM Ric Sherlock <tikk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Raul, Elijah & Jose for your thoughts & discussion.
> It's somewhat reassuring to know that I wasn't missing anything simple and
> for my purposes the current solution suffices.
> Out of interest, is it easier to obtain the name of the verb that "u" in
> the adverb refers to?
>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 8:08 AM Jose Mario Quintana <
> jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In principle, and in general, the problem of determining whether two
> > (arbitrary given) verbs would produce the same result for an (arbitrary
> > given) argument is non-computable; otherwise, it would imply that the
> > halting problem is decidable (as far as I know and I can see).
> >
> > In practice, I use a conjunction similar conceptually to the adverb
> > myadverb to verify that two tacit verbs have essentially the same
> > definition (i.e., apart from cosmetic differences (e.g., redundant
> > parentheses or proverbs)). I also use occasionally an adverb to
> transform
> > tacit verbs defined in terms of caps to the equivalent verbs in terms of
> > ats (@:) (this is basically term rewriting).
> >
> > I hope it helps.
> >
> > On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 9:38 AM Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > There isn't really a better way to do that test.
> > >
> > > Conceptually, what you want is a test that determines whether two
> > > verbs would always produce the same results for the same arguments,
> > > but that's a problem involving infinities. It's proof territory.
> > >
> > > That said, typically we solve this kind of problem by hand, rather
> > > than using a test on the structure of the verb.
> > >
> > > Good luck,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Raul
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 5:20 AM Ric Sherlock <tikk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I want to test if a particular verb was provided to my adverb.
> > > > I came up with the solution below. Is there a better way?
> > > >
> > > > myadverb = {{
> > > > res=. u {:y
> > > > if. theverb f.`'' -: u f.`'' do.
> > > > res=. ({.y) ,: res
> > > > end.
> > > > res
> > > > }}
> > > >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 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
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
