Yes. * is product (***) is product of products
They are related but different. Oh, and you get a free parenthesis on the right of a verb train, but not on the left. Thanks, -- Raul On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Linda Alvord <lindaalv...@verizon.net> wrote: > But can you explain the difference in a few words? > > -----Original Message----- > From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com > [mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Raul Miller > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:15 PM > To: Programming forum > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] High Speed Train Challenge > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
