While I am comparing the learning of J to the learning of english:

Do we have grammar school students learn english by asking them to
only use [insert grammatical structure here]?  Why or why not?

If so, how well does that work?

If not, what do we do instead?

Thanks,

-- 
Raul

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Linda Alvord <[email protected]> wrote:
> Also, this has only forks:
>
>
>
> 5!:4 <'t1'
>
>       ┌─ 2
>   ┌───┼─ {.
>   │   └─ [
>   ├─ $
>   │        ┌─ [:
> ──┤   ┌────┼─ ;
>   │   │    └─ ]
>   │   ├─ /:
>   └───┤    ┌─ [:
>       │    ├─ ;
>       └────┤    ┌─ [:
>            │    ├─ /. ─── <
>            └────┤
>                 │      ┌─ [:
>                 └──────┼─ i.
>                        └─ [
>
>
>
> This has both forks and hooks:
>
>
>
>    5!:4 <'t2'
>
>       ┌─ 2
>   ┌───┼─ {.
>   │   └─ [
>   ├─ $
> ──┤   ┌─ ]
>   │   │     ┌─ /:
>   │   ├─ & ─┴─ ;
>   └───┤
>       │     ┌─ [:
>       │     ├─ /. ─── <
>       └─────┤
>             │      ┌─ [:
>             └──────┼─ i.
>                    └─ [
>
>
>
> Linda
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:programming-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Linda Alvord
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:00 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] inverse oblique
>
>
>
> I remember fondly how Ken loved to read the unabridged dictionary. Richness
> of the language and the derivations of the words was a joyous experience
> for him.  The J language has this same richness.
>
>
>
> For students coming to the language with years of mathematical background
> in abstract algebra, calculus, differential equations and the like, they
> are ready t o jump easily to abstract combinations.
>
>
>
> I keep thinking in terms of the long time it takes high school students to
> master functional notation like  f(x)  and  g(x).
>
>
>
>
>
> To get from  t1 to t2 requires and "idiom"  x u&v y ↔ (v x) u (v y)
>
>
>
> t1=: 13 :'(2{.x)$(;y)/:;</.i.x'
>
> t2=: 13 :'(2{.x)$y/:&;</.i.x'
>
>
>
> So although t1 is longer than t2,  t2 is more condensed and compex.  This
> is why I say easier:
>
>
>
>     t1
>
> (2 {. [) $ ([: ; ]) /: [: ; [: </. [: i. [
>
>     t2
>
> (2 {. [) $ ] /:&; [: </. [: i. [
>
>
>
> The condensed spacing of  /:&;  gives away the increased complexity of the
> second tacit version.
>
>
>
> My guess is that you would spend less time reading the dictionary to master
>
> t1 than t2.
>
>
>
> Linda
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- wo
>
> From:  <mailto:[email protected]> programming-
> [email protected] [mailto:programming-
> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Raul Miller
>
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 9:20 AM
>
> To:  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
>
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] inverse oblique
>
>
>
> How do you define "easier"?
>
>
>
> In my opinion, it's easier to go from simple (fewer tokens) to complex
> (more tokens), but also someone has to write the code to do the
> transformation and until that's been done even this concept of "easier" can
> be indistinguishable from "can't be done".
>
>
>
> --
>
> Raul
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Linda Alvord <
> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>
>
> wrote:
>
>>  If t1 is easy tacit and t2 is advanced tacit, wouldn't it be easier
>
>> for  J to figure  t2  from  t1  than it is for me?
>
>>
>
>>     t=: 5 7 2 ?@$ 1e6
>
>>     s=: $t
>
>>     x=: </.t
>
>>    t1=: 13 :'(2{.x)$(;y)/:;</.i.x'
>
>>    t-:s f x
>
>> 1
>
>>    t2=: 13 :'(2{.x)$y/:&;</.i.x'
>
>>    t-:s g x
>
>> 1
>
>>    t1
>
>> (2 {. [) $ ([: ; ]) /: [: ; [: </. [: i. [
>
>>    t2
>
>> (2 {. [) $ ] /:&; [: </. [: i. [
>
>>
>
>> Or is that just wishful thinking?
>
>>
>
>> Linda
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From:  <mailto:[email protected]> programming-
> [email protected]
>
>> [ <mailto:[email protected]> mailto:programming-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Roger
>
>> Hui
>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:49 PM
>
>>  To: Programming forum
>
>> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] inverse oblique
>
>>
>
>>    t -: (2{.s) $ x /:&; </.i.s
>
>> 1
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Roger Hui
>
>> < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>wrote:
>
>>
>
>>>    t=: 5 7 2 ?@$ 1e6
>
>>>    s=: $t
>
>>>    x=: </.t
>
>>>
>
>>>    t -: (2{.s) $ (;x)/:;</.i.s
>
>>> 1
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Raul Miller
>
>> < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>>> Let's start with an arbitrary array:
>
>>>>
>
>>>>    A=: i. 2 3
>
>>>>
>
>>>> We can box oblique lines from this array:
>
>>>>
>
>>>>    </. A
>
>>>> +-+---+---+-+
>
>>>> |0|1 3|2 4|5|
>
>>>> +-+---+---+-+
>
>>>>
>
>>>> However, the interpreter does not currently provide us with an
>
>>>> inverse for this operation:
>
>>>>
>
>>>>    </.inv </. A
>
>>>> |domain error
>
>>>>
>
>>>> One problem is that you cannot uniquely determine the first two
>
>>>> elements of the shape of the original array by inspecting </.'s
>
>>>> result:
>
>>>>
>
>>>>    (</. 5 7$0) -: </.7 5$0
>
>>>> 1
>
>>>>
>
>>>> If its shape is provided, how might we reconstruct the original array?
>
>>>>
>
>>>> [For the sake of simple code, it's ok to focus on numeric, rank 2
>
>>>> arrays.]
>
>>>>
>
>>>> --
>
>>>> Raul
>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>>> -
>
>>>> - For information about J forums see
>
>>>>  <http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm>
> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
>>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> For information about J forums see  <http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm>
> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
>>
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> For information about J forums see  <http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm>
> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For information about J forums see  <http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm>
> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For information about J forums see  <http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm>
> 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

Reply via email to