You say below:
"Anyways, I'm having a problem with "I was told that I was using & dyadically
so it was compose." because & in =&{: is compose but not because & was being
used dyadically."
Isn't =&{: B a case where & is compose, and the expression =&{: is
applied monadically to B ?
I am also enjoying your recent attempt at writing a definition for &
Linda
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Raul Miller
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 3:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] stitching matrices
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Linda Alvord <[email protected]> wrote:
> m&v y ↔ m v y This is the definition of bond (monadic)
>
> u&v y ↔ u v y . This is the definition of compose (dyadic)
>
>
> =&{: is the definition which I used earlier as =&{: B
>
> I was told that I was using & dyadically so it was compose.
We need to be careful about using the word "it" in learning contexts.
Also, J grammar is regular, so we need to be very careful when describing the
use of that grammar.
In J, "dyad" refers to the combining definition (usually of a verb, since verbs
have two definitions), while "monad" refers to the non-combining definition
(usually of a verb...)
Anyways, I'm having a problem with "I was told that I was using & dyadically
so it was compose." because & in =&{: is compose but not because & was being
used dyadically.
The & itself is used dyadically in =&{: and in 1&+ and in *&2 but only one of
those is compose. And all three of those derived verbs have both monadic and
dyadic definitions. Instead "compose" would be because both arguments to &
were verbs. (Which was probably the intent of the "it was compose" sentence,
but the words were wrong for
me.)
It might be interesting to write a J conjunction which acts like &
ampersand=:2 :0
NB. monad
select. #.*nc;:'u v'
case. 0 do. assert. 0 NB. invalid
case. 1 do. m v y NB. left bond
case. 2 do. y u n NB. right bond
case. 3 do. ([: u v)"v y NB. compose monad
end.
:
NB. dyad (combining form)
select. #.*nc;:'u v'
case. 0 do. assert. 0 NB. invalid
case. 1 do. (m ampersand v)^:x y NB. left bond
case. 2 do. (u ampersand n)^:x y NB. right bond
case. 3 do. x (([: v [) u ([: v ]))"v y NB. compose dyad
end.
)
Note that I would need to introduce another level of abstraction if I wanted an
immediate syntactic warning for the invalid case.
amp=:2 :0
select. #.*nc;:'u v'
case. 0 do. assert. 0 NB. invalid
case. 1;2;3 do. u ampersand v
end.
)
Note also that this implementation displays differently from the builtin (for
the cases where the resulting derived verb is not used to generate a result).
But unless I have made an error these will function the same way the built in
works.
I hope this helps,
--
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
