You may also want to review http://www.jsoftware.com/help/learning/09.htm On Jul 19, 2014 9:15 PM, "Raul Miller" <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> J's trace facility should make the answer to this question obvious? > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Linda Alvord <lindaalv...@verizon.net> > wrote: > > I'm still looking for the phrase or concept that explains the difference > > between these two. Why are they producing different results? > > > > 3(***(***)(***))4 > > 35831808 > > > > 3((***)(***)***)4 > > 429981696 > > > > If you grew up in the early years using APL, an idea might come to mind. > > > > Linda > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com > > [mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of 'Pascal > > Jasmin' via Programming > > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 8:34 PM > > To: programm...@jsoftware.com > > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] High Speed Train Challenge > > > > > > > > 3 * utu utu 4 > > > > 3 * 1 : '[: u~ u' 1 : '[: u~ u' 4 > > 429981696 > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Kip Murray <thekipmur...@gmail.com> > > To: "programm...@jsoftware.com" <programm...@jsoftware.com> > > Cc: > > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:55:02 PM > > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] High Speed Train Challenge > > > > utu =: 1 : '[: u~ u' > > 3 *:@* utu 4 > > 429981696 > > > > uses the ideas that *** is equivalent to *:@* and u u u is equivalent to > [: > > u~ u > > > > On Saturday, July 19, 2014, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming < > > programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote: > > > >> I'm not sure I'm arguing for the idea. I've disliked ~ in the past > >> because I've read it as one of the other 2 meanings that was written. I > >> wonder if making reflexive more common would help overcome forgetting it > >> exists quicker. > >> > >> from your examples, it would appear that good candidates for monadic + > and > >> * would be +~ and *~. Monadic * and + could have been chosen with +: > and > >> *: symbols. We can (fortunately) implement such bivalence ourselves: > >> > >> area =: *~ > >> > >> area 8 > >> 6 area 8 > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: robert therriault <bobtherria...@mac.com <javascript:;>> > >> To: programm...@jsoftware.com <javascript:;> > >> Cc: > >> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:16:58 PM > >> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] High Speed Train Challenge > >> > >> Hi Pascal, > >> > >> Not arguing against the idea but they are only functionally the same for > >> monadic. > >> > >> 4 *: 4 > >> |domain error > >> | 4 *:4 > >> 4 +: 4 > >> |domain error > >> | 4 +:4 > >> 5 *: 4 > >> |domain error > >> | 5 *:4 > >> 5 *~ 4 > >> 20 > >> 5 +: 4 > >> |domain error > >> | 5 +:4 > >> 5 +~ 4 > >> 9 > >> > >> Cheers, bob > >> > >> > >> On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:59 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming < > >> programm...@jsoftware.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > >> > kindof the same as your idea > >> > > >> > *~(^:3) 12 > >> > 429981696 > >> > > >> > completely off topic, but would it be a good or bad thing if, assuming > >> there was a shortage of ascii mnemonics, and some need, if monadic +: > and > >> *: were redefined considering that +~ and *~ do the same? > >> > > >> > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: Erling Hellenäs <erl...@erlinghellenas.se <javascript:;>> > >> > To: programm...@jsoftware.com <javascript:;> > >> > Cc: > >> > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 3:05:03 PM > >> > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] High Speed Train Challenge > >> > > >> > Another way to do the same thing, but not a solution, is this > > expression: > >> > > >> > 3 (*(*(***)*)*) 4 NB. Funny way > >> > 429981696 > >> > > >> > Anyone can find a nice recursive way to write it? My best shot: > >> > > >> > 12 1:`([ * [ $: [: <: ])@.([: * ]) 8 NB. Complicated way > >> > 429981696 > >> > > >> > It's a recursion? * $: * > >> > > >> > /Erling > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On 2014-07-19 20:48, Raul Miller wrote: > >> >> Probably, yes. > >> >> > >> >> And I was sort of provocative by not going with the implied > > limitations. > >> >> > >> >> But there's can be quite a bit of ambiguity when key issues are > >> >> implied, rather than addressed or illustrated. > >> >> > >> >> This is a problem I face myself, quite often: How can I be aware of > >> >> important issues which matter to other people, when I am incredibly > >> >> focused on my own point of view? > >> >> > >> >> That said: > >> >> > >> >> (1) Erling Hellenäs had already posted some solutions which satisfied > >> >> the "one verb" constraint using * as that verb (at the time I made my > >> >> 42981696"_ post). > >> >> > >> >> (2) Realizing that derived verbs are J verbs is an important lesson > >> >> which beginning J programmers often overlook. > >> >> > >> >> You can't really be a good J progammer if you don't understand the > >> >> grammar of the language. And it's not that the grammar is hard to > >> >> understand - it's extremely simple. But it's so simple that it's also > >> >> easy to sometimes get by with false generalizations about its rules. > >> >> > >> >> This leads into the almost inevitable "no that's not what I meant" > >> >> sorts of social issues. > >> >> > >> >> So yes, my post was - in a sense - somewhat bratty. But I felt that > >> >> the underlying issue was important enough to raise the point and > stick > >> >> with it at least until someone called me on it. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> > >> > > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > 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 > >> > > > > > > -- > > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
