Dan wrote: " All these puzzles are interesting, but ever since you posted the “holy grail”, the “write a tacit adverb to do X” challenges have been reduced (in principle) to “write a tacit verb to do X”, and given you sent me, in something like 2002, a complete implementation of a Turing Machine as a tacit verb, the exercises seem … superfluous. "
Right :) but as I remember someone saying: A theory without applications is worth as much as applications without a theory. The aim is to show the "holy grail" and also the "sorcerer's cauldron" in action and in the process introduce other related general tools, as long as there is interest; we will see. We are just warming up; I hope. An ulterior motive was to show the power of the wicked ways and what could be lost if that power, the gerundial ^: form bug/feature (together with another similar one), is removed. Yet, If worse comes to worst, from my perspective, Jx and Ju (a shorthand for J Unbox) would still be there. Dan also wrote: " That said, if Thomas comes through with an interpreter which re-introduces (some of) the F Trains table, new challenges (in terms of brevity and algebraic reduction) will open up to us." " The Jx version 0 already has the trident and bident that I mentioned in the Ju thread. Jx version 1 was finally settling when I got the idea of extending the equivalence (x a0)a1 <-> x(a0 a1) literally. I am testing it now and it feels right so far. The intention is to release a Jx version 1 patches together with libraries for Windows and Unix in a few weeks but we might just release the patch for Ju to pick it up together with the other two, so orthodox writers do not have to wait unnecessarily. On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Dan Bron <[email protected]> wrote: > Pepe wrote: > > Let us add another twist, courtesy of David Lambert, to the Exercise 1: > > > All these puzzles are interesting, but ever since you posted the “holy > grail”, the “write a tacit adverb to do X” challenges have been reduced (in > principle) to “write a tacit verb to do X”, and given you sent me, in > something like 2002, a complete implementation of a Turing Machine as a > tacit verb, the exercises seem … superfluous. > > In other words, it can all be done, because you have done all of it. In a > very literal sense. > > The upside, however, is I have never read one of your posts and not > learned something not only new, but intriguing. If I were given to envy, I > might have experienced that, as well. Good thing the only sentiment I feel > for my fellow man is admiration ;) > > That said, if Thomas comes through with an interpreter which re-introduces > (some of) the F Trains table, new challenges (in terms of brevity and > algebraic reduction) will open up to us. If I were given to > competitiveness, I might perceive that as a kind of perverse motivation. > > I’m already dusting off my running shoes. > > -Dan > > * In general, I have been, historically, lax about backups. > > In general, I am not bothered, because death is inevitable and possessions > are but albatrosses about our necks, but a few losses have made me regret > this specific foible. > > All the lost treasures which I was given by the luminaries of J, early in > my career, before I was in a position to truly appreciate them, including > your Turing Machine, personal correspondence from Ken, private guidance by > Henry Rich, a utilities file presented to me by Kirk Iverson, etc, number > among these regrets. > > Ah well, youth is not known for its gratitude, is it? > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
