If v1 and v2 are verbs then v1 at v2 presents verb definitions of at. These definitions of course incorporate the definitions of v1 and v2.
That said, you are right and I should have explicitly included its conjunction definition, and some of my examples were broken, and your suggested alternatives address this brokenness. Thanks, -- Raul On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
