I know how to drive and I know the functions of the steering wheel, accelerator pedal, brake pedal, gear shift, ... but I have little idea of the internal construction and workings of the car. I would find it intolerable if I can not drive a car until I know the internal construction and the internal workings.
The rank model is meant to provide the major functional components in working with rank and understanding rank. "er" is effective rank, and you do not need to know that it is constructed from gerunds etc. in order for it to be helpful to you in working with rank. ----- Original Message ----- From: Terrence Brannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Saturday, June 23, 2007 5:01 am Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] Let's get explicit about dyadic verb processing > On 6/23/07, Roger Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Your worksheet uses English prose which is difficult > > to get precise and correct. What is needed is an > > expression of the ideas and rules in an executable > > notation. I have just the thing: > > http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Rank > > Roger, in studying this Essay, two things happened. First I got as far > as the definition of er and realized that it was only through the text > "Learning J" that I could detect that er was using things such as > gerunds, the Iverson convention, dyadic hooks, etc. So I am returning > to my studies of "Learning J" with renewed intensity. In fact, I have > comprehensive assessment tests on each of the first 10 chapters > written up and am going through them. Once I have 100% mastery on > those 10 chapters, I will continue to add comprehensive tests on the > material in "Learning J". > > Next follow my impressions/criticisms of my reading of that Essay. I'm > sure one day it will make fine reading, but right now, I want to get > into some interesting data processing with J and I think that careful > and diligent reading of "Learning J" is the one fast path to higher > levels of J. comments follow... > > > On: http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Rank > > <quote> > A verb of rank r is defined on arguments with rank > bounded by r > </quote> > > This statement is vague and ambiguous to me. Bounds can be upper > or lower, > as well as inclusive or exclusive of endpoints. Using my wits, I am > guessing that this statement means > "a verb of rank r is defined on arguments with rank <= r" > > <quote> > The extension to higher-rank arguments is the same for all > verbs. > </quote> > > I do not understand this statement. > "Extension to higher-rank arguments" - what is extension? "higher rank > arguments" ... what is meant by that? Can you give an example? > > > <quote>The rank conjunction " (operator) augments the default > ranks of > a verb by user-specified ranks. </quote> > > definition of augment from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Augments > > To make (something already developed or well under way) greater, > as in > size, extent, or quantity > > I dont think augment is accurate. I think it is more accurate to say > the rank conjunction explicitly defines > the ranks of a verb. If the default rank of a verb is 5 5 5 and I > conjunction said verb as verb"3 3 3 then it is not greater in size, > extent, or quantity. It therefore is not augmented... unless getting > closer to zero is the criteria for greatness. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
