> The reader is expected to deduce that "ranks are [not] infinite" for @, and so finite.
Not deduce - the ranks are explicitly stated at the top of the Vocab page for @ . The last sentence that Bill mentions simply draws attention to the fact that @ and @: differ in their ranks. BTW, this kind of question is better suited to the programming forum, thanks. On 2 January 2016 at 21:55, Matthew Baulch <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for pointing that out. If I understand correctly, > > — @: is defined in terms of @ in the original Voc., and > — @ defines itself by reference to its contrast with @: > > The reader is expected to deduce that "ranks are [not] infinite" for @, and > so finite. They then deduce that the ranks of the resulting verb are > finite, and that the resulting verb is (somehow) uniquely determined by the > above. > > Perhaps that is sufficient. To me, it's very opaque; but I am far from the > only person such documentation is intended to serve. It seems others are > not keen to alter (for better or worse) the original Vocabulary. While I > don't understand this position, I accept that J has a long historical > context and that many others are better placed to understand the needs of > its users. > > Thanks to everyone for explaining the situation. > > — Matt > On 3 Jan 2016 4:09 pm, "bill lam" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The last sentence is > > > > Compare the behaviour of @ with that of @: . They differ only in > > the ranks of the verbs that they produce. > > > > and in the definiion for @: it said > > > > @: is equivalent to @ except that ranks are infinite. > > > > AFAIK the wordings for definitions of @ and @: remained more or less > > the same ever since 1993. > > > > Вс, 03 янв 2016, Matthew Baulch написал(а): > > > http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/at mentions this rank > situation, > > > as Henry pointed out. > > > > > > http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/d620.htm does not appear to. > > > The last sentence in the page you mentioned should already had > > > said something about the ranks. Did you miss it? > > > > > > Вс, 03 янв 2016, Matthew Baulch написал(а): > > > > (0, 1) Thanks for your kind words. It does seem a very supportive and > > > > knowledgeable community. > > > > > > > > (3) This makes sense now. Thanks too for pointing me to NuVoc. It > > seems an > > > > improvement in some respects, though it appears not to be distributed > > with > > > > J. > > > > > > > > (4) I particularly enjoy the terseness of the original Voc., and its > > > > availability offline. Perhaps a static copy of NuVoc could be > > distributed > > > > with J, and the original Voc. could include a warning about its > > > > obsolescence? > > > > > > > > I'd love to see J thrive in the future. It seems the case with all > > > > software, whether programming language or not, that documentation > very > > > > important. J's is very good. This is the only shortcoming I can see. > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > On 3 Jan 2016 1:11 pm, "Henry Rich" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 0. Welcome to J! > > > > > > > > > > 1. If you are able to get that far entirely on your own, my hat is > > off > > > to > > > > > you. You're a J natural, and I think you'll enjoy the language. > > > > > > > > > > 2. Your analysis is brilliant, though not quite perfect. rv must > > mean, > > > > > not the right rank of v, but instead the rank of a result-cell of > v. > > > And > > > > > even then, the equivalence would not be exact, because of changes > to > > > > > result-cells when they are assembled into the overall result of v. > > > > > > > > > > 3. The best resource for learning J is NuVoc. It fills in the > gaps > > in > > > > > the Dictionary, corrects errors like this one, and has tutorial > > > > > information. For u@v, see > > > > > > > > > > http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/at > > > > > > > > > > 4. The Dictionary is not actively maintained. Don't expect an > > update. > > > > > But NuVoc is a Wiki, so do what you can to improve it! > > > > > > > > > > Henry Rich > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/2/2016 8:59 PM, Matthew Baulch wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> The equivalence (from the voc. page for @) > > > > >> > > > > >> x u@v y ↔ u x v y > > > > >> > > > > >> only seems to apply in some cases. For instance, with > > > > >> > > > > >> x =: 1 2 3 4 > > > > >> y =: 5 6 7 8 > > > > >> u =: */ > > > > >> v =: + > > > > >> > > > > >> this is most certainly false. After exploring a number of cases, > > > > >> it seems likely that > > > > >> > > > > >> x u@v y ↔ u"rv x v y > > > > >> > > > > >> where rv is the right rank of v. Is this true in all cases? > > > > >> If so, I'd be grateful if the dictionary could be updated > > accordingly. > > > > >> > > > > >> Matt Baulch > > > > >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >> 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 > > > > > > -- > > > regards, > > > ==================================================== > > > GPG key 1024D/4434BAB3 2008-08-24 > > > gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4434BAB3 > > > gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --armor --export 4434BAB3 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > -- > > regards, > > ==================================================== > > GPG key 1024D/4434BAB3 2008-08-24 > > gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4434BAB3 > > gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --armor --export 4434BAB3 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
