"On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM, km <[email protected]> wrote: > Roger provides a motivation for capped fork in his Wiki essay Capped Fork: > > > http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Capped%20Fork?highlight=%28completeness%29 > > He says, "When [: g h is interpreted as g@:h , it means that "everything" > can be expressed as a fork (ordinary and capped)." > > I hope this teaser will make you eager to see his essay! > > --Kip Murray > "
First, two teasers regarding your teaser follow: 0. "Everything" is defined previously in that reference as "Every explicit sentence with one or two arguments which does not use the argument(s) as an operator argument." which "can be expressed tacitly by fork and at. When [: g h is interpreted as g@:h ." However, in the "Proof of completeness" there is no mention of @: (or [:) Why? 1. The "Proof of completeness" notwithstanding, can you exhibit an example of "everything" where the tacit construction loses the functionality of its counterpart (because it is taken out of its explicit context)? Second, from my viewpoint the original fork interpretation could not replicate the behaviour of @: (because of the reasons stated in the essay); thus, and exception to the original fork interpretation is introduced so that, the claim "'everything' can be expressed as a fork (ordinary and capped)" can be made. In my opinion, that might be a necessary but not a sufficient condition to use [: instead of @: to express "everything." The tacit dialect is Turing complete; is this fact alone a compelling reason to code tacitly instead of explicitly? Do not get me wrong, I appreciate a great deal the constructive proof(s) of completeness and its corresponding tool. It allowed me to translate familiar explicit sentences to unfamiliar tacit sentences and nowadays it allows me to translate unfamiliar explicit sentences to familiar tacit sentences. Teasers' spoilers follow in: ,. @: |. @: i. 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0. See, http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2005-June/022866.html http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2005-June/022868.html http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2005-June/022869.html 1. See, http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2005-June/022870.html http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2005-June/022872.html (It fails in a different way nowadays.) On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM, km <[email protected]> wrote: > Roger provides a motivation for capped fork in his Wiki essay Capped Fork: > > > http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Capped%20Fork?highlight=%28completeness%29 > > He says, "When [: g h is interpreted as g@:h , it means that > "everything" can be expressed as a fork (ordinary and capped)." > > I hope this teaser will make you eager to see his essay! > > --Kip Murray > > Sent from my iPad > > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Jose Mario Quintana > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A teaser cap is the exception to the > >> > >> rule, [: is the only verb that is not invoked when is the leading verb > in a > >> fork, for no compelling reason (again, from my viewpoint). > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
