Raul, I know that k and g are not equivalent; they were not meant to be. Neither are f and g equivalent; they are meant to elucidate execution and parse ordering, I believe.
But I do not think the bottom-to-top execution order is a coincidence. For example even for your G execution begins at the bottom of the page with *: . Oh, wait. Maybe we mean different things when we say "bottom": I mean bottom of the page, do you mean bottom of the tree or something? Your G differs from k in that the 13 and 3 forms are different from one another for G. I did not provide the 13 form for k which would have required parentheses like the following. 13 : '(% %: - + *:)y' Your warning regarding the precarious font reproduction is well taken. Thank you, On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > Note, however, that the "top-to-bottom" aspect is coincidental, and that k > and g are not equivalent. > > G=: 13 :'%%:-+*:y' > 5!:4<'G' > ┌─ [: > ├─ % > ──┤ ┌─ [: > │ ├─ %: > └────┤ ┌─ [: > │ ├─ - > └────┤ ┌─ [: > └────┼─ + > └─ *: > k 9 > 5.19987e16 > g 9 > 0j_0.111111 > G 9 > 0j_0.111111 > > (And, as usual, I expect that list readers will have to ensure that they're > using an appropriate (fixed width) font to see the tree displays. I think > the line of responsibility for that issue looks approximately like printing > press tradition -> Knuth -> education system -> Microsoft -> education > system -> Google.) > > FYI, > > -- > Raul > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Brian Schott <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Linda, > > > > Thank you for your f, g, and h examples. > > Together with Henry's long explanations, they helped me better able to > > understand the tree form. I think **now** I can see that the order of > > parsing is from left to right before execution which is from bottom to > top. > > I used the fork example tree below to see this as well. > > > > k =: % %: - + *: > > 5!:4 <'k' > > ┌─ % > > ├─ %: > > ──┤ ┌─ - > > └────┼─ + > > └─ *: > > > > g=: 13 :'%@%:@-@+@*:y' > > 5!:4 <'g' > > ┌─ % > > ┌─ @ ─┴─ %: > > ┌─ @ ─┴─ - > > ┌─ @ ─┴─ + > > ── @ ─┴─ *: > > > > Now compare the trees of g and k above. (For purposes of comparison, the > > defined k was constructed with the same order of verbs as the defined g.) > > > > Both the definitions of g and k are unadorned with parentheses and both > are > > executed from bottom to top in their respective trees. But whereas g's > tree > > is upward sloping, k's is downward sloping and the right to left parsing > > order in the trees describe the opposition of the two. > > > > These relative asymmetries **show** me a little better why you have for a > > long time wanted to concentrate on developing verbs in only one of the > two > > ways (using forks and not conjunctions, in your case) to limit > complexity. > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Linda A Alvord < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Guess how this tree will look before you look. > > > > > > h=: 13 :'((((%@%:)@-)@+)@*:)y' > > > 5!:4 <'h' > > > > > > Linda > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Programming [mailto:[email protected]] On > > > Behalf Of Linda A Alvord > > > Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2016 2:01 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] @ and @: (atop and at) > > > > > > Henry, Your explanation of how the conjunctions are parsed helped make > > the > > > tree diagrams make more sense. I gave up my idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > f=: 13 :'(%@(%:@(-@(+@*:))))y' > > > > > > 5!:4 <'f' > > > > > > ┌─ % > > > > > > ── @ ─┤ ┌─ %: > > > > > > └─ @ ─┤ ┌─ - > > > > > > └─ @ ─┤ ┌─ + > > > > > > └─ @ ─┴─ *: > > > > > > g=: 13 :'%@%:@-@+@*:y' > > > > > > 5!:4 <'g' > > > > > > ┌─ % > > > > > > ┌─ @ ─┴─ %: > > > > > > ┌─ @ ─┴─ - > > > > > > ┌─ @ ─┴─ + > > > > > > ── @ ─┴─ *: > > > > > > > > > -- > > (B=) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- (B=) <-----my sig Brian Schott ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
