Do you mean by "verb definition" and “of the verb” a generic (u at v) verb? (I am somewhat confused because you initially wrote "Here's a definition for at" which is a definition of a conjunction.) If so, I understand what you mean by domain, mapping (at least for verbs that are meant to be functions) and rank; however, what do you mean by "range"?
I do not know exactly what you mean by "at d. 1" and "@ d.1" perhaps ((u at v) d.1) and ((u @ v) d.1)? On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > By "definition" I specifically mean "verb definition" which means: the > behavior (domain, range, rank, mapping) of the verb in the monadic > case and the dyadic case. Also, in the general case "definition" > would also include any noun, adverb or conjunction definitions. > > In this case, the verb definition of 'at' is used only within the > context of the d. definition -- to make at d. 1 and @ d. 1 be > identical we would need to fix the definition of d. > > -- > Raul > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Jose Mario Quintana > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sure, if you do not make use of d. is insignificant. However, difference in > > behavior because of context could cause a production system to crash and > > that would be very significant to me; being extra careful (trust but > > verify), in my experience, has prevented grim consequences in similar > > circumstances. > > > > I am curious: What you do exactly mean by "Here's a definition for at which > > works exactly like @"? > > > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Jose Mario Quintana > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Here's a definition for at which works exactly like @ > >>>> > >>>> at=: 2 :'([: u v)"v > >>> > >>> > >>> Rather works almost exactly? > >>> > >>> ('*'"_) @ ((+: @ *:) (d.1)) (0 1 2) > >>> * > >>> ('*'"_) @ ((+: at *:) (d.1)) (0 1 2) > >>> *** > >>> > >>> ((+: @ *:) (d.1)) b.0 > >>> _ _ _ > >>> ((+: at *:) (d.1)) b.0 > >>> 0 0 0 > >> > >> Here, we are no longer comparing the definitions of @ and at > >> > >> ((+: @ *:) (d.1)) > >> 0 4x&p. > >> ((+: at *:) (d.1)) > >> 0 4x&p."0 0 0 > >> > >> Instead, it's the working of d. that is significant here. > >> > >> Here's another case where @ and at are different, and I feel that the > >> significance of this case is similar to the significance of the d. > >> case (though obviously they are not identical cases): > >> > >> '@' -: 'at' > >> 0 > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
