I like to think of Cap [: as a left identity element for the tree representation of a fork.
f g h is g f h and [: g h is g h Sent from my iPad On Jul 27, 2012, at 8:10 AM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Dan Bron <j...@bron.us> wrote: >> In a draft, I had originally written "Meaning its definition is irrelevant". >> I think that sums it up. > > Change "definition" to "imperative definition" and that seems reasonable. > > Mostly we think of using J verbs using their imperative tense. > Gerunds (and other nouns) are passive and we use a different concept > of definition when dealing with passive forms than we do when dealing > with active forms. > > (As an aside, note that the practice of using the gerund as a noun > seems to be characteristic of English but not latin languages -- > there, they seem to like using the infinitive for this purupose. But > I am parroting what I read here, and I do not have any deeper insights > on this topic.) > > Anyways, the definition which is relevant when cap is the left tine of > a fork is a passive definition, and not an imperative definition. And > making this distinction -- that it's being used passively -- seems > worthwhile. > >> Everything we discuss re J is modulo bugs, unless we constrain ourselves to >> the Platonic J embodied in the DoJ. Precision issues are again not >> grammatically anomalous, and in fact could also be considered semantically >> transparent, if we hold numbers to be analytic (or constrain our discussion >> to Platonic J). > > I do prefer to ignore precision issues when I can get away with it. > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
