Thanks. I can render it in pdflatex with the change you suggested. There is
no standalone class in my tex, so I also changed it to article in the first
line.
I can't tell which version of diagrams are better. If one doesn't
understand J concept of verb rank and assemble, all diagrams are
It’s tex code, to be compiled with lualatex.
You may use pdflatex instead but need to change
the package “luainputenc” to “inputenc“.
Am 02.04.20 um 05:54 schrieb 'Jim Russell' via Programming:
Sorry, how should I convert that into a viewable diagram.
Thanks!
On Apr 1, 2020, at 11:17 PM,
[Jprogramming] Bug in new vocabulary &: page
>
> Actually, I’m a little bit confused as well:
> I thought I understood it but obviously didn’t so I tried redoing the diagram
> but with one set of arrows altered.
> Am I right these should be different or do I misinterprete the way
Sorry, how should I convert that into a viewable diagram.
Thanks!
> On Apr 1, 2020, at 11:17 PM, Hauke Rehr wrote:
>
> Actually, I’m a little bit confused as well:
> I thought I understood it but obviously didn’t
> so I tried redoing the diagram but with one
> set of arrows altered.
> Am I
Actually, I’m a little bit confused as well:
I thought I understood it but obviously didn’t
so I tried redoing the diagram but with one
set of arrows altered.
Am I right these should be different or do I
misinterprete the way atop is meant to work?
thanks
Am 29.03.20 um 03:36 schrieb ethiejiesa
To me the First big distinction between @s and is the fact that v is
executed dyadically with @ and monadically with &. This is likely suggested
by the width of the rectangles especially at the bottom of the diagram, but
it is not stated there, in favor of the phrase about each cell. But the
I’m still at the point where my eyes glaze over whenever I see that diagram.
So, yes, even though it may be too soon for me to understand it, I would
appreciate your effort to shed more light on the topic.
> On Mar 28, 2020, at 9:36 PM, ethiejiesa via Programming
> wrote:
>
> I might try
Raul Miller wrote:
> Another possible way to emphasize what's going on here might be to
> split 'v' up into multiple instances (one for each cell) in the &
> case. (Though, there, drawing a box around the 'v' part, to show the
> scope of the verb and distinguish the definition from the
Another possible way to emphasize what's going on here might be to
split 'v' up into multiple instances (one for each cell) in the &
case. (Though, there, drawing a box around the 'v' part, to show the
scope of the verb and distinguish the definition from the application
-- possibly even backed up
Perhaps you could improve the diagram as Raul suggested, by showing that
'break y into cells' occurs as part of u processing while in u&:v it
is part of v processing.
The point of the diagram is to show the difference between u and u&:v
(and u@v and u@:v) and it does that beautifully. Every J
I would put it this way:
The diagram could better distinguish between the structure of v and
the structure of & (or &:).
Probably a light grey box drawn around the "v part" (and the "u part")
would help make this distinction clear.
(But, since it's an image, and I don't know how the image was
Thanks for clarifying.
3) In my opinion, phrases on diagram
* split x into cell
* split y into cell
do not provide anything for understanding conjunctions and could be removed.
They apply generally to any verb.
4) The phrase on the diagram "apply v to each cell" is misleading.
It would be
Even when you apply v to the entire y, you must first split y into cells
so that it can be applied to v. Every verb operates on cells whose
rank is no higher than the rank of the verb.
In other words, the splitting is not part of u@:v - it is part of
executing v itself.
Henry Rich
On
My comments relate to the third column of the diagram.
1. I don’t understand why it is written on the diagram that Y should be
splitted into cells
if the verb V should be applied to the whole argument Y.
2. The diagram says the verb V must apply individually to each cell Y,
and at the top of
I don't see what's wrong with the picture. Can you be specific?
y must always be split into cells, regardless of whether you use & or &:
. The difference comes in whether you collect the results before
applying them to u .
Henry Rich
On 3/28/2020 2:36 PM, 'Sergey Kamenev' via Programming
Health to all!
Page:
https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/ampco
Written at the top of the page:
Applies verb v to each argument in its entirety, and then applies verb u to the
result(s) of v
The diagram says about &: (bottom to top):
* split y into cell
* apply v to each cell
Nice
16 matches
Mail list logo
