Pascal, it seems to me that your explicit conjunction is more similar to my tacit adverb sa described in [0], look for ‘sa…’, than to mu. I use cap [: to cap the strand of words instead of 9: and the atomic (or equivalent), as opposed to its linear, representation of the “operating” adverb is the rightmost word in the strand. Mu is an instance of sa’s sibling (sv) descrbed in [1], where a wicked verb (instead of an adverb) is “operating” on the rest of the (to be) collected gerund.
[0] Tacit recursion without $: http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2014-February/035416.html [1] Tacit recursion without $: http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2014-March/035662.html On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:44 AM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming < [email protected]> wrote: > I came up with something similar to your mu function, or more precisely, > more similar to Dan's strand notation. > > at bottom of this page: > > http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/PascalJasmin/double%20adverbs%20vs%20conjunctions > > appologies for duplicating your names. > > The improvement over Dan's work is the ability to pair the strand parser > with another adverb to process the accumulated sentence. It is optimized > for `:n. ,and other adverbs that take gerunds. > > The improvement that it needs is a general function to convert from > gerunds to linear representation (on a per verb phrase basis would be fine). > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> > To: Programming forum <[email protected]> > Cc: > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 1:36 PM > Subject: [Jprogramming] Can whatever be written tacitly? > > Can whatever be written tacitly? Depending on the type of whatever (verb, > adverb or conjunction) the answers are respectively yes, yes, and no. Any > explicit verb or adverb can always be ,in principle, rewritten tacitly. No > (user-defined) conjunctions can be produced tacitly (using a current > official interpreter). > > The question that follows is: How can whatever (explicit) verb or adverb be > rewritten tacitly? > > Not surprisingly, many challenging questions posted on the forum involve > explicit one-liners verbs such that the explicit-to-tacit conversion form > 13 : '…' produces back explicit verbs instead of the wanted tacit verbs > because the 13 : '…' requirement "every explicit sentence with one or two > arguments which does not use the argument(s) as an operator argument" is > not fulfilled. A sample list is [0,1,2,3,4]. > > I realized recently that this kind of challenges could be solved in a > flash, if one is prepared to come to the dark side. In other words, > another one bites the dust... as long as one is willing to be literally > incorrect. Yes! :) > > A challenge, for example, in the thread corresponding to [4] was to produce > a tacit counterpart (f1) of f0 where, > > JVERSION > Installer: j602a_win.exe > Engine: j803/2014-10-19-11:11:11 > Library: 6.02.023 > > f0=. 4 :'x @.0&.>/y'"_1 > > F0=. ((-~ +/)"1)`((*~ +/)"1)`((+~ +/)"1)`((%~ +/)"1) > R0=. >: i. 5 > D0=. (i.5 3);(i.5 2);(i.5 4);(i.5 3) > > |.F0 f0 (<R0),. D0 > ┌───────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┐ > │ 3 1.5 1 0.75 0.6│ 7 8 9 10 11│ 1 2 3 4 5│ 2 1 0 _1 _2│ > │12 6 4 3 2.4│23 24 25 26 27│ 5 10 15 20 25│11 10 9 8 7│ > │21 10.5 7 5.25 4.2│39 40 41 42 43│ 9 18 27 36 45│20 19 18 17 16│ > │30 15 10 7.5 6│55 56 57 58 59│13 26 39 52 65│29 28 27 26 25│ > │39 19.5 13 9.75 7.8│71 72 73 74 75│17 34 51 68 85│38 37 36 35 34│ > └───────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┘ > > A quick solution is, > > ". noun define -. CRLF > > f1=. > ((<<0 6),(<(<,'X'),(<'@.'),(<<(,'0');0),(<'&.'),(<,'>'),(<,'/'),<, > 'Y'),<(,0);(,1);(,2);(,3);(,4);(,5);,6)&((1&({::) > ((<'@.') (0:`)(,^:)) 2&({: > :))@:(<@:((0: 0&({::)@:]`(<@:(1&({::))@:])`(2&({::)@:])} ])@:(3 0 > 1&{)) 1} ])@:(, <))@:,&:(<@:((,'0') ,&< ]))"_1 > > ) > > |.F0 f1 (<R0),. D0 > ┌───────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┐ > │ 3 1.5 1 0.75 0.6│ 7 8 9 10 11│ 1 2 3 4 5│ 2 1 0 _1 _2│ > │12 6 4 3 2.4│23 24 25 26 27│ 5 10 15 20 25│11 10 9 8 7│ > │21 10.5 7 5.25 4.2│39 40 41 42 43│ 9 18 27 36 45│20 19 18 17 16│ > │30 15 10 7.5 6│55 56 57 58 59│13 26 39 52 65│29 28 27 26 25│ > │39 19.5 13 9.75 7.8│71 72 73 74 75│17 34 51 68 85│38 37 36 35 34│ > └───────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┘ > > How was f1`s code produced? Quite easily, using the latest version of a > modified interpreter (Jx) that takes literacy incorrectness to new lows... > > JVERSION > Installer: j602a_win.exe > Engine: j701/2012-12-06/12:20/x > Library: 6.02.023 > > f1=. [: X Y 'X @.0&.>/Y' mu o ,&:an f. "_1 f. > > The rest required to wrap and repair its linear representation (for the > purpose of showing f1 to this forum running on an official interpreter), > > 66 (Wrap=.-@:[ ]\ 5!:5@<@:]) 'f1' > ((<<0 6),(<(<,'X'),(<'@.'),(<<(,'0');0),(<'&.'),(<,'>'),(<,'/'),<, > 'Y'),<(,0);(,1);(,2);(,3);(,4);(,5);,6)&((1&({::) ,^:(0:`@.) 2&({: > :))@:(<@:((0: 0&({::)@:]`(<@:(1&({::))@:])`(2&({::)@:])} ])@:(3 0 > 1&{)) 1} ])@:(, <))@:,&:(<@:((,'0') ,&< ]))"_1 > > ((<'@.') (0:`)(,^:)) > ,^:(0:`@.) > > The definitions of an and o are, > > an > <@:((,'0') ,&< ]) > > o > @: > > What is mu? > > 66 Wrap 'mu' > (2?:(<(,'0');({:@:] (?:(<'`:'))&6 :.(<@:((,'0') ,&< ]))@:, <@:((,' > 0') ,&< ])@:(?:(<'`.')))`((?:(<'`:'))&6 :.(<@:((,'0') ,&< ]))@:({: > ; <@:((,'0') ,&< ])@:}:)@:}:@:])@.(>@:((<[:)"_) -: [)))((<(,'0'); > ([ (?:(<,'&')) >@:])&(<(1&({::) ,^:(0:`@.) 2&({::))@:(<@:((0: 0&({ > ::)@:]`(<@:(1&({::))@:])`(2&({::)@:])} ])@:(3 0 1&{)) 1} ])@:(, <) > )@:(1 2 3&{)@:(<@:(<@:(2&({::) (i."_ 0) 1&({::))) 1} ])@:((((,&< ~ > .)@:[ (1&({::)@:[ ,&< (1&({::)@:[ i. ] { 0&({::)@:[)L:_ 0) ]) ((;: > '()') >@:{.^:(1 = #)L:1^:_@:(>@:{.L:1)@:((('';1) <@:,;.1 ] <@:(}.@ > :}:^:(1 < #));.2&>~ (= <./)&.>@:{:)L:1^:(1 + >./@:>@:{:))@:(i.@#@] > ,&< +/\@:(-/)@:(=/)) ]))@:((<@:((,'0') ,&< ])@:".@:]^:[&.>~ ([: ( > ('''' = {.) +. (':' ~: {:) *. '_0123456789' e.~ {.)@|: 2 {.&> ]))@ > :(}.~ (_1 * 'NB.' (('.:' e.~ {:@]) < (-: }:)) 4 {.&> {:))@:;:)@:(( > ?:(<'`:'))&6 :.(<@:((,'0') ,&< ])))@:{:@:(0&({::)) 2 3} ])@:(<@:(} > :@:(0&({::))) 1} ])@:('W E I'&(] , ;:@:[))@:<),<(,'0');(2?:(<(,'0' > );({:@:] (?:(<'`:'))&6 :.(<@:((,'0') ,&< ]))@:, <@:((,'0') ,&< ])@ > :(?:(<'`.')))`((?:(<'`:'))&6 :.(<@:((,'0') ,&< ]))@:({: ; <@:((,'0 > ') ,&< ])@:}:)@:}:@:])@.(>@:((<[:)"_) -: [)))) > > Alright, alright; its linear representation is seriously faulty anyway. In > English words: mu is an adverb written after its sibling adverb lambda > which I have mentioned before. Mu allows the production of a wicked verb > specified by a sentence written in a lambda/strand notation style. The > sentence implies the sequential production of multiple adverbs that > culminates with the production of the wicked verb. For example mu in the > sentence ( [: X Y 'X @.0&.>/Y' mu ) is what Pascal could refer as a > "multiple" adverb, in this particular case, a "quadruple" adverb [5]. > > Dan, if you are reading this, you might have noticed that you very own > nest2Box and gTxt verbs [6] are embedded in mu; thanks for writing and > sharing them. I understand your reasons for writing nest2Box cutting > bottom-up rather than recursing top-down. However, one can now embed > anonymous recursive verbs even when one is using an official interpreter. > I wonder if you wrote a recursive prototype for nest2Box, or if you could > write one, which you could share. I am curious if a possible TCO Jx > version of nest2Box could be competitive. > > What else can mu allow one to do? > > plus=. [: X Y 'X+Y NB. Are X and Y nouns or verbs?' mu > type'plus' > ┌────┐ > │verb│ > └────┘ > > plus o (an"0) 2 3 NB. Plus producing a noun > 5 > 2 plus o (an"0) o , 3 > 5 > plus 2`.3 NB. `. is a Jx extension > 5 > > plus *`% NB. Plus producing a verb :) > * + % > (*`'') plus o , (%`'') > * + % > 1 2 3 (*`'') plus o , (%`'') 4 5 6 > 4.25 10.4 18.5 > > plus 2`.% > 2 + % > plus 2`.% 3 4 5 > 2.33333333 2.25 2.2 > > Mu allows the use multiple formal parameters, continuing with the applying > gerund example [4], > > g0=. [: F D R '|.F f1 (<R),. D NB. Three parameters' mu o (an e) f. > NB. "Quintuple" adverb > > g0 (F0;D0;R0) NB. Boom shakalaka! > ┌───────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┐ > │ 3 1.5 1 0.75 0.6│ 7 8 9 10 11│ 1 2 3 4 5│ 2 1 0 _1 _2│ > │12 6 4 3 2.4│23 24 25 26 27│ 5 10 15 20 25│11 10 9 8 7│ > │21 10.5 7 5.25 4.2│39 40 41 42 43│ 9 18 27 36 45│20 19 18 17 16│ > │30 15 10 7.5 6│55 56 57 58 59│13 26 39 52 65│29 28 27 26 25│ > │39 19.5 13 9.75 7.8│71 72 73 74 75│17 34 51 68 85│38 37 36 35 34│ > └───────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┘ > > Mu shines when it facilitates writing (tacit) adverbs (and "multiple" tacit > adverbs). That was the reason that prompted me to write the lambda adverb > (mu's sibling) in the first place. I will elaborate on the production of > adverbs, via mu, another day. It is ironic that naming arguments > facilitates the production of some kind of verbs and adverbs that do not > name arguments. Oh well, "We do what we have to do so that we can do what > we want to do." > > [0] Conjunction in tacit verb > > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2015-January/040965.html > > [1] Substitution with under > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2014-May/037213.html > > [2] Tacit? > > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2014-January/034499.html > > [3] Tacit help needed > > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-August/015798.html > > [4] Applying gerund > > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-August/016023.html > > [5] Double adverbs vs conjunctions > > > http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/PascalJasmin/double%20adverbs%20vs%20conjunctions > > [6] Anonymous Evoke (ae), take 2 > > http://www.jsoftware.com/svn/DanBron/trunk/environment/anonymous_evoke2.ijs > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
