Agreed!
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:57 AM Raul Miller wrote:
>
> I would keep in mind that one advantage of redundant information (such
> as redundant parenthesis) is that this can let you ignore some
> surrounding issues.
>
> That is not always the best tactic - it often pays to have a deep
> un
Yes, > ((<,'/')`(<(<,'@')`(<
> /(@(g h))
Excellent, thanks! I had the feeling that there could be such a form but I
could not find it quickly late last night.
> So your D2 definition is already part of the implementation.
Yes, the point of D2 is to legitimize a useful bug/feature of the current
I would keep in mind that one advantage of redundant information (such
as redundant parenthesis) is that this can let you ignore some
surrounding issues.
That is not always the best tactic - it often pays to have a deep
understanding - but the ability to focus attention where it's needed
is crucia
Your interesting new example is
(<,'/')`(<(<,'@')`(<(<,'2'), wrote:
> You are suggesting that a list of ARs be construed as a valid AR.
No, I would not dare to mess with the description of what an AR is.
Probably the source of the confusion was my unfortunate use of the phrases
"M represe
> You are suggesting that a list of ARs be construed as a valid AR.
No, I would not dare to mess with the description of what an AR is.
Probably the source of the confusion was my unfortunate use of the phrases
"M represents R" when I just meant "The product of M `:6 is R." What I am
suggesting i
Currently `:6 has a high tolerance for each, but there is a distinction between
conjunctions and "compositions" in your example
( + ar , < +ar, -ar) `:6
+ (+ -)
('@' aar , < +ar, -ar)`:6
@(+ -)
(< '@' aar , < +ar, -ar)`:6
+@-
(< '@' aar , < +ar, -ar) -: +@- ar
1
You are suggesti
I think it's more like this:
A sequence of ARs *may* represent an AR.
Limitations include:
(1) parsing rules apply. Syntactically invalid sequences do not represent an AR.
(2) domain rules apply. Verbs which do not cooperate will not represent an AR.
(3) implementation limits apply. If we run ou
You are suggesting that a list of ARs be construed as a valid AR. I
agree with the goal. I worry that the encoding is not reversible.
+-+
|+-+-+|
||f|+-+-+||
|| ||g|h|||
|| |+-+-+||
|+-+-+|
+-+
Is this (f (g h)) (as it must be if f is a verb)
or (g f h) (if f is a
> I would say that (<,'"') is kosher and (<'"') not, already, based on
> this interpretation of what Ye Dic meant. The implementation is
I am adopting your suggestion henceforth.
> My vote would be that 'train' refers to any sequence of ARs and that
> when `:6 said 'train of individual verbs' it
I think I agree.
My vote would be that 'train' refers to any sequence of ARs and that
when `:6 said 'train of individual verbs' it meant to say 'the (possibly
derived) words created by executing the train of the (possibly derived)
words represented by each AR'.
I would say that (<,'"') is ko
I was not stating that all boxed representation (BR) can, or should be,
interpreted using the train (`:6) and agenda (@.). I mentioned them
just because
when I was learning, many years ago, to construct these (almost surely
illegal) forms supported by the interpreter, the related BRs were
enlighte
> because the long sequence of ARs is not a valid AR.
Certainly, the purpose of posing those questions was to find out where the
permissiveness breaking point would be. This is what, I think, I have
learned regarding the tie, train, and (left) agenda arguments in J (as
described or might be descr
I think one issue is that interpreting 5!:2 results as trains can
result in ambiguities.
ar=:1 :'5!:1<''u'''
br=:1 :'5!:2<''u'''
F=: ,&(3 ar)
F
,&(<(,'0');3)
F f. br`:6
,&3
Or, generally speaking, nouns in 5!:2 results are not intended for use
in trains.
G=: +&3
G f. br`:6
|
Change? We have been discussing whether certain forms are valid. The
spec, Ye Dic, is silent and we are filling it in.
Jsoftware's policy has been to leave the JE as it is in some cases where
it accepts forms that are not valid according to the language
definition. This is from indolence mo
Would this change be likely to break existing code?
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:58 PM Henry Rich wrote:
> I would object to
>
> ((<'"') ,~ (<;:'u@:v-v@:u')) (`:6)
>
> because the long sequence of ARs is not a valid AR. This seems like an
> interpreter artifact.
>
> The result of 5!:2 is not ger
I would object to
((<'"') ,~ (<;:'u@:v-v@:u')) (`:6)
because the long sequence of ARs is not a valid AR. This seems like an
interpreter artifact.
The result of 5!:2 is not germane here, as it is not an AR. Your
examples using it also seem to be interpreter artifacts to me.
Henry Rich
O
> Of course the fact that m@.n allows certain forms does not imply that
> m@.v would support similar forms.
Of course.
> I don't see anything to object to here.
Great! This means tacit adverbs functioning as parameterized macros are,
or might be eventually, legitimized.
>
Of course the fact that m@.n allows certain forms does not imply that
m@.v would support similar forms.
Henry Rich
On 3/10/2020 11:34 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
I don't think it's illegal. The spec (Ye Dic, here) is incomplete. It
That is good to know.
I don't see anything bad coming
I don't see anything to object to here. There are gerunds and adverbs,
producing trains that evaluate properly.
By The Wise I mean the /ulama/ of J (neminem nominabo, genus hominum
significasse contentus) You know who you are.
Henry Rich
On 3/10/2020 11:34 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
> I don't think it's illegal. The spec (Ye Dic, here) is incomplete. It
That is good to know.
> I don't see anything bad coming from executing a train containing
> non-verbs; so I would vote to expand the spec to include all trains.
I do not see anything bag coming either, on the contrary.
>
I don't think it's illegal. The spec (Ye Dic, here) is incomplete. It
says what will be done if there is a verb train but is silent about
other trains.
What the implementation does is accept any train and evaluate it.
Thinking about it I don't see anything else you could do with a train; &
I wrote:
> This has been an area of J (the language described by the official
documentation, as opposed to j, the language implemented by a particular
interpreter) that it is not entirely clear to me. May I start from the
beginning?
>
> > > an=. <@:((,'0') ,&:< ])f. NB. Atomizing nouns (monad
Ye Dic mentions only verb trains under `: .
an=. <@:((,'0') ,&:< ])f.
(<,'+:') ` (an 1) @. 0 1
2
The ARs are converted to a sequence of words and that sequence is
executed. I guess it couldn't be any other way - a value has to have a
single part of speech.
(an 1) `(<,'+:') @. 0 1
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 6:21 PM Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
> May I start from the beginning?
>
> > > an=. <@:((,'0') ,&:< ])f. NB. Atomizing nouns (monadic verb)
> > >
> > > (<,'"') ` (an 1) (`:6)
> > > "1
> > > (<,'"') ` (an 1) @. 0 1
> > > "1
> > >
> > > They are considered illegal becaus
> > A shorter version of Jose's argument.
> >
> > Functional programming requires the ability to pass functions as
arguments. A missing feature in J is to pass modifiers as arguments, and
Yes, perhaps I covered too much ground.
> We could generate three identifiers which could be used as
> place
Note that another option for passing modifiers as arguments would be
to use placeholder verbs as arguments to the modifiers and then
passing the resulting verb.
As long as the placeholders are identifiable, they can then be easily replaced.
For example, given:
genid=:({~ ?@#~@#)@((#~_1<:nc@<"0
A shorter version of Jose's argument.
Functional programming requires the ability to pass functions as arguments. A
missing feature in J is to pass modifiers as arguments, and atomic
representations is the best (or at least a very good) way of getting around
that limitation.
examples of Jose'
> P.S. I will try to provide an answer with details during the weekend.
I am describing details of the system that I would like to have or keep,
and why. Since this is a forum I am providing repetitive background
information for the potential benefit of other members. An important
motivation fo
> Note that getting useful linear representations from 5!:5 becomes
> significantly harder if it must also represent nouns which contain
> non-nouns.
No, I was not necessarily referring to wicked (non-standard) nouns. I
will try to provide more details during the weekend.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 12:09 PM Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
> The short answer is: I would like, at least, to change whatever needs to be
> changed in the interpreter to produce and display proper linear
> representations (LRs) of adverbs which currently have faulty ones, and
> change what needs to
> > What should be changed, and how, to make the system you want?
> I would gladly try to describe the system that I would want to have in
the context of train (`:6), agenda (@.), gerunds, and related forms; but,
it is too late for me to do so coherently tonight.
The short answer is: I would like,
The lr of (`(<(":0);_)) (`:6) should be itself.
in addition to Jose's a2 bug (`_) which does not produce the atomic
representation of _ when executed, there is also
(<'0';3)`
<'0';3` (here ` binds with 3, and not the entire expression to the left of `)
There is no bug for `(<'0';3)
What is
What I read here is complaining. What I am asking for is a suggestion
for action. What should be changed, and how, to make the system you want?
Henry Rich
On 3/2/2020 9:51 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
The issue, to me, is not reflected in your example (wherein that context
makes sense to r
The issue, to me, is not reflected in your example (wherein that context
makes sense to replace the AR). Consider instead the following adverb,
a2=. (`(<(":0);_)) (`:6)
a2
(`_)(`:6)
(5!:5)<'a2'
(`_)(`:6)
The issue, in this context, is that,
b2=. (`_)(`:6) NB. defined using the LR
I am trying to follow this to see if there is a bug that needs fixing.
That has not been made clear to me. I observe
(f@g)`h`]
+-+-+-+
|+-+-+|h|]|
||@|+-+-+|| | |
|| ||f|g||| | |
|| |+-+-+|| | |
|+-+-+| | |
+-+-+-+
(f@g)`h`] `: 6
+---+-+-+
|+-+-+-+|h|]|
||f|@
> Any definition of gerunds limited to atomic representations of verbs is
an oversimplification (for natural language gramatical analogy). It should
be atomic representations without limitations. @. and `:6 can produce nouns
and modifiers from their atomic representations.
I fully agree with you
Any definition of gerunds limited to atomic representations of verbs is an
oversimplification (for natural language gramatical analogy). It should be
atomic representations without limitations. @. and `:6 can produce nouns and
modifiers from their atomic representations. The nuvoc page for ` i
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,
< 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 i
Here's a better illustration of the problem:
example=: ((3 ar)`) (`(5 ar))(`:6)
0!:0 'example2=:',5!:5<'example'
+ example
8
+ example2
|domain error: example2
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:15 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
wrote:
>
> the bug is the display of
>
>
that’s the way I had done it in the first place,
only in one line 2 : '1 : (… '' (u A)~ '' … )'
What I forgot was to keep in mind what parts of speech
I’m dealing with so I forgot to parenthesize the noun
to the right; in a simple test case I said i.3 to the right
and the modifier grabbed the i. r
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
> Seems I found a bug
The question is:
Is the long-standing ability of (`:6), and @., to handle arrays of atomic
representations (and similar), a bug or a feature?
Dan mentioned a decade ago,
No subject [!]
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2009-April/033220.html
(Unfortunatel
the bug is the display of
((3 ar)`) (`(5 ar))(`:6)
((3`)(`5))(`:6)
((3 ar)`) (`(5 ar))
(3`)(`5)
where,
ar =: 1 : '5!:1 <''u'''
The displayed code result is not a valid executable equivalence to the
expression that created it. This appears to be a display only bug, as the code
works inte
I also don't understand what it is alleged is an error.
Henry Rich
On 2/27/2020 9:06 PM, Julian Fondren wrote:
On 2020-02-27 19:38, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
gerunds are lists of atomic representations? (yes,ok, that is a noun)
A more basic description of the problem.
What is
On 2020-02-27 19:38, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
gerunds are lists of atomic representations? (yes,ok, that is a noun)
A more basic description of the problem.
What is the problem though? Is 'modifiers' still a valid subject
for this thread? Even reading your last message, or the t
gerunds are lists of atomic representations? (yes,ok, that is a noun)
A more basic description of the problem. Both of these expressions are illegal
3`+
3`+`5
when 2 nouns are joined with "`", ` acts as the verb ",".
I guess the usefulness of that behaviour is that a "conjunction train of `"
The documentation on various results of the !: conjunction is linked
from the "foreigns" label near the top of the vocabulary page.
The 5!: foreigns are documented at
https://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dx005.htm
I hope this helps,
--
Raul
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 5:03 PM Hauke Rehr wrot
Hauke,
I would not worry too much about being accused of rtfm
0) it seems to me that you are studying this seriously and that is all that can
be expected of anyone.
1) this is often how we find the areas that can be improved in the manual.
2) it looks like Pascal may have found an aberration bec
I read it in the Vocabulary (pages of the Dictionary
linked to from the Vocabulary, that is), not in NuVoc.
(at least not thoroughly, I remember having had a glance)
That and all your answers I’ll have to think about.
Thanks for taking my request seriously.
I feel like I’ve got way too little expe
gerund are nouns.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 12:51 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
wrote:
>
> Seems I found a bug, though the following approach still works, and has the
> best performance
>
> ar =: 1 : '5!:1 <''u'''
>
> the bug is:
>
> ((3 ar)`) (`(5 ar)) (`:6)
>
> ((3`)(`5)
The description of : in NuVoc gives the most detail I know of. Have you
read it?
Henry Rich
On 2/26/2020 6:20 PM, Hauke Rehr wrote:
Hello again,
I’m still confused about modifiers.
Please tell me where to find more information
that might aid in understanding how this works:
I have an adverb
Seems I found a bug, though the following approach still works, and has the
best performance
ar =: 1 : '5!:1 <''u'''
the bug is:
((3 ar)`) (`(5 ar)) (`:6)
((3`)(`5))(`:6) NB. not valid gerunds, though magically the following still
works
+ ((3 ar)`) (`(5 ar)) (`:6)
8
+ A=: (((3 ar)`) (`(
Or, more robust:
C=:2 :0
mRep=. 5!:5<'m'
mVn=. m V n
mVnRep=. 5!:5<'mVn'
1 :('(',mRep,') u~ ',mVnRep)
)
Example use:
V=:+
,. 10 C (i.2 3)
10 11 12 10
13 14 15 10
(The issue here is that 5!:5 is better than ": when serializing nouns
for use in sentences.)
Perhaps even better, thou
C =: 2 : 0
1 : ((": m) , ' u~ ' , ": m V n)
)
On Thursday, February 27, 2020, 03:04:57 a.m. EST, Hauke Rehr
wrote:
What I want is rather something (C here) callable like
noun1 C noun2
resulting in the adverb
noun1 u~
What you say I knew except if the evaluation
rules changed in j9 a
What I want is rather something (C here) callable like
noun1 C noun2
resulting in the adverb
noun1 u~
What you say I knew except if the evaluation
rules changed in j9 and this is new bahaviour.
That said, I got rid of my nested 1 :/2 :
construct (I didn’t mention that yet)
and tried replacing m
u or m will be the argument to A. x and y arguments to resulting verb.
it sounds as though you may be trying to do
A =: 1 : 'x u~ x V y' NB. a valid dyadic adverb in j9
and this would be equivalent to
([ u~ V)
On Wednesday, February 26, 2020, 06:20:45 p.m. EST, Hauke Rehr
wrote:
57 matches
Mail list logo
