Hi Pascal, Pepe, I have a pdf copy of [0] Bernecky, Robert, and R.K.W. Hui, *Gerunds and Representations*, if you need one.
Just email me so I can get your address (klettow at thomasnet.com). Ken On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Jose Mario Quintana < [email protected]> wrote: > "Also what is the definition of af ?" > > The wicked verb af is defined in [0]; find the line: > > ( af=. an o fix f.) NB. Atomizing after fixing (an > alternative to atomic representations) > > the wicked verb fix is the verbalized f. also defined previously in [0]. > > By the way, although it is possible, in principle, to produce an > orthodox tacit version of your explicit adverb r, the process becomes > unbearably tedious; it is still tedious to produce an unorthodox > tailor made version. However, the unorthodox fixed tacit adverbs > kappa and lambda can produce unorthodox fixed tacit equivalents of > that kind of adverbs in a flash. That matters a lot to a tacit > fanatic (like me). > > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Jose Mario Quintana < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The "Proposition`combine`basis`reduce" framework is not mine; it belongs > > to Robert Bernecky and Roger Hui [0]. A pdf format used to be freely > > available; you could still get one at the link that I provided [0] but > you > > would have to be a member of the ACM. Alternatively, a ps format is > > available; try "gerunds and representations ps" in Google. > > > > Yes, default parameters could be very useful and it is something I would > > have to think about but not yet (personally, I have not had the need so > > far). > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:09 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> thanks for sharing, Pepe > >> > >> lambda is very cool, and beats my attempts at easily composing fully > >> contained multi adverbs. > >> > >> I also find your "Proposition`combine`basis`reduce" framework to > >> recursion interesting, but was unable to find a google reference. Also > >> what is the definition of af ? > >> > >> From Dan's strand notation, > >> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009-July/015565.html > >> > >> a small variation > >> > >> t9 =: s 9: > >> > >> and from > >> > >> > http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/PascalJasmin/double%20adverbs%20vs%20conjunctions > >> , > >> > >> tie =: '`' c2da > >> > >> a semi-tacit (explicit adverb that returns tacit verb) version of your > >> recurse adverb in original[1] and quoted > >> > >> r =: 1 : ' ''`a b c d'' =. m label_. b`(c $:@:d)@.a f.' > >> > >> Alternative syntax is not that bad even if it requires more tokens > >> because seperating the active adverb from the parsing strategy. Even > if it > >> is much more elegant as your adverb when you can combine it with its > >> parser. But the alternatives: > >> > >> 9: * 1: * <: t9 r > >> 1:`(* $:@:<:)@.* > >> > >> > >> * 1: * <: tie tie tie r > >> 1:`(* $:@:<:)@.* > >> > >> While there is a loss in elegance, there is a readability benefit of > >> having the parser(s) explicity mentioned. A separation of the work > adverb > >> and parser also allows you to insert in-between adverbs (such as setting > >> default parameters/verb phrases). > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> > >> To: Programming forum <[email protected]> > >> Cc: > >> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:42 PM > >> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Can whatever be written tacitly? > >> > >> I wrote: > >> " > >> Dan, if you are reading this ... I wonder if you wrote a recursive > >> prototype for nest2Box, or if you could write one, which you could > share. > >> " > >> > >> Dan, never mind; I found: > >> > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2011-November/025493.html > >> and I should be able to take it from there. > >> > >> I also wrote: > >> " > >> 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. > >> " > >> > >> Today is another day. This is another try at implementing the adverb > >> (`:4) > >> described in [0]. It has been almost a year since my first one [1]. > Let > >> us keep going in high gear well above the speed limit, > >> > >> JVERSION > >> Installer: j602a_win.exe > >> Engine: j701/2012-12-06/12:20/x > >> Library: 6.02.023 > >> > >> evoke4=. [: v0 v1 v2 v3 'v1`(v2 $:@:v3)@.v0' mu > >> > >> fact=. evoke4 *`1:`*`<: > >> fact 5 > >> 120 > >> > >> fib=. evoke4 >&1`(i.@>:)`(] , +/@(_2&{.)@])`<: > >> fib 7 > >> 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 > >> > >> But that does not really implement the adverb `:4 because evoke4 is a > >> wicked verb. Let us sweep the black magic under the carpet then, > >> > >> Evoke4=. [: v0 v1 v2 v3 'v1`(v2 $:@:v3)@.v0' mu adv > >> > >> fact=. *`1:`*`<: Evoke4 > >> fact 5 > >> 120 > >> > >> fib=. >&1`(i.@>:)`(] , +/@(_2&{.)@])`<: Evoke4 > >> fib 7 > >> 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 > >> > >> What is adv? It is an adverb that adverbializes a verb. It is easily > >> defined in Jx but it can be also produced, without breaking any speed > >> limit, using an official interpreter (see, for example, the definition > of > >> Adv0 in [1]); one can even use mu to produce such an adverb. Let us > >> continue with the path set in [1] and produce a "quadruple" adverb (Ev4) > >> using strand style (without the intrusive `) that does not require a > cap. > >> The adverb Evoke4 together with the adverb sna in [1] can produce the > >> wanted adverb Ev4 but there is a better way. > >> > >> Ev4=. [: v0 v1 v2 v3 'v1`(v2 $:@:v3)@.v0' kappa > >> > >> fact=. * 1: * <: Ev4 > >> fact 5 > >> 120 > >> > >> fib=. >&1 (i.@>:) (] , +/@(_2&{.)@]) <: Ev4 > >> fib 7 > >> 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 > >> > >> What is kappa? It is a "multiple" adverb that produces another adverb > >> with > >> "multiplicity' equal to the number of arguments; kappa is lambda's twin. > >> > >> Ev4=. [: v0 v1 v2 v3 (v1`(v2 $:@:v3)@.v0) lambda > >> > >> fact=. * 1: * <: Ev4 > >> fact 5 > >> 120 > >> > >> fib=. >&1 (i.@>:) (] , +/@(_2&{.)@]) <: Ev4 > >> fib 7 > >> 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 > >> > >> Lambda takes directly the defining sentence without quotes and has > certain > >> advantages over kappa for producing adverbs. It follows a different > >> approach that depends neither on a verbalized agenda, nor gTxt nor > >> nest2Box. > >> > >> The latest version of Jx is still evolving but the intention is to make > >> the > >> patches for the extensions available once it settles. > >> > >> [0] Bernecky, Robert, and R.K.W. Hui, *Gerunds and Representations*, > >> APL91, > >> ACM. > >> http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=114059 > >> > >> [1] Tacit recursion without $: > >> > >> > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2014-February/035416.html > >> > >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
