I wrote responding to an explanation provided by Raul:
"
I have to digest it a little bit more but so far everything seems to be
falling into place; at least, your interpretation is consistent.
"
I cannot find any weakness in your interpretation and it has been
enlightening; thanks again. Nevertheless, I would like to show a type of
case where the result of u/Y, when #Y is 1 seems somewhat odd (a similar
case, in a sacrilegious context, tripped me up some time ago):
( Y=. <"0@:i. 11 )
┌─┬─┬─┬─┬─┬─┬─┬─┬─┬─┬──┐
│0│1│2│3│4│5│6│7│8│9│10│
└─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴─┴──┘
u=. (([ , _1 , ])&:>/)
u/Y
0 _1 1 _1 2 _1 3 _1 4 _1 5 _1 6 _1 7 _1 8 _1 9 _1 10
u/(10$Y)
0 _1 1 _1 2 _1 3 _1 4 _1 5 _1 6 _1 7 _1 8 _1 9
u/( 9$Y)
0 _1 1 _1 2 _1 3 _1 4 _1 5 _1 6 _1 7 _1 8
...
u/( 3$Y)
0 _1 1 _1 2
u/( 2$Y)
0 _1 1
u/( 1$Y) NB. (Naively?) expecting 0!
┌─┐
│0│
└─┘
One can easily modify the verb applied Y to get what one was expecting, for
example,
>@:(u/) Y
0 _1 1 _1 2 _1 3 _1 4 _1 5 _1 6 _1 7 _1 8 _1 9 _1 10
>@:(u/)(10$Y)
0 _1 1 _1 2 _1 3 _1 4 _1 5 _1 6 _1 7 _1 8 _1 9
>@:(u/)( 9$Y)
0 _1 1 _1 2 _1 3 _1 4 _1 5 _1 6 _1 7 _1 8
...
>@:(u/)( 3$Y)
0 _1 1 _1 2
>@:(u/)( 2$Y)
0 _1 1
>@:(u/)( 1$Y)
0
(but that is not the point).
Dan wrote:
"
Even NuVuc refers back to the DoJ as the authoritative, normative reference.
If pointing out gaps in the Dictionary on the Forums isn't the way to get
it updated, what is?
"
Right, even if I am not fully prepared to argue that there is a gap in the
Dictionary in this instance, I have learned as a result of the questions
and responses provided in this thread ( apparently, I was not the only one;
the NuVoc entry for / has been updated ;)
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <
jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, it does indeed:
>
> u=. +
>
> ((u^:((# - 1:))@:{.) -: u/) (i.1)
> 1
>
> Also,
>
> erase'u'
> 1
>
> ((u^:((# - 1:))@:{.) -: u/) (i.1)
> 1
>
> I have to digest it a little bit more but so far everything seems to be
> falling into place; at least, your interpretation is consistent.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Remember that the definition of u/ was:
>>
>> "u/y applies the dyad u between the items of y".
>>
>> The items of i.1 are {.i.1
>>
>> And:
>> ({.i.1) -: +/i.1
>> 1
>>
>> Does that make sense? (And, yes, I intentionally mangled english
>> grammar in my third sentence of this message.)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Raul
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
>> <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Now, that is interesting. Thus, it seems, the unofficial documentation
>> > about / is not quite correct (depending on what the meaning of "is"
>> is.).
>> >
>> > I have another question: if "u is applied (#y)-1 times." How come,
>> >
>> > (-: u^:0)i.1
>> > 1
>> >
>> > ?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> y always remains unchanged. Note also that the result is distinct from
>> y:
>> >>
>> >> (-: +/) i.1
>> >> 0
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Raul
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
>> >> <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > My only guess is:
>> >> > "m/y inserts successive verbs from the gerund m between items of y"
>> >> >
>> >> > So, if there is no "between items of y" inserts nothing and y remains
>> >> > unchanged; but, it seems to me that the Dictionary could be more
>> >> assertive
>> >> > in this instance.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Dan Bron <j...@bron.us> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Pepe wrote:
>> >> >> > My only question is: Does the Dictionary support this behavior?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Raul responded:
>> >> >> > Yes, it does.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I replied:
>> >> >> > I am intrigued. Can you elaborate?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thomas followed-up:
>> >> >> > I assumed that by not mentioning it, the implementation
>> >> >> > is free to do what it chooses. It could be anything!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's what I think too. The behavior is, in the strictest literal
>> >> sense,
>> >> >> undefined. But Raul differs. I'm interested in his rationale
>> (which,
>> >> >> historically, has been both solid and instructive).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -Dan
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> 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
