gerund ^: seems mostly pointless, but this is a cool trick to make an adverb
fork
{.@] ((`1:)(`({:@]))(*^:)~) 2 3 4 7
14
{:@] ((1:`)({.@]`)(*^:)~) 2 3 4 7
14
_9:`7:^:_1 'this is weird'
_9
very weird only works with ^:_1
noopA =: `] inv
+: noopA 3
6
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Bron <[email protected]>
To: J Programming <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2016 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Adverbial Tacit Jym
]\. 'beware spoilers'
beware spoilers
eware spoilers
ware spoilers
are spoilers
re spoilers
e spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
poilers
oilers
ilers
lers
ers
rs
s
In addition to Raul’s suggested (`:3), which I take to be against the spirit of
the challenge, how about:
a1x1 =. ( ^:((] {.)`1:`(] {:)) ) ~
Not sure if you count (] f) as cheating-ly avoiding @: etc; if you don’t like
it, I can find a different way (I considered [: but discarded it as within the
letter but against the spirit).
Now, if you want me to be *really* sneaky, I can remind you of this little
hidden gem [1]:
_9:`7:^:_1 'this is weird'
_9
Or, if you don’t mind good old brute force, I should remind you to disbar 5!:0
wherever you disbar (`:6) . It’s a little harder to work with, but not much
harder.
You should state clearly that any solution based on string-evaluation, be it “.
or 128!:2 or ~ or even really sneaky things like “:^:_1 and 9!:26 are
prohibited. No fun at all. Gerunds or bust.
-Dan
[1] aka “gerund^:_1”, buried in the sands which have drifted since 1996:
http://www.jsoftware.com/help/release/status.htm#3.02
<http://www.jsoftware.com/help/release/status.htm#3.02>
> On Apr 4, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Let us consider yet one more twist, courtesy of Dan, to the Exercise 1
> variant (a1x0 described below); that is, produce, say a1x1 without
> involving either /, &, &:, @, @:, &., &.:, @. or `:6 such that for
> arbitrary but specific u and N,
>
> ( (u a1)N ) -: ( (u a1x1)N ),
>
> for example,
>
> * a1x1 2 3 5 7
> 14
> (1 + %) a1x1 3 5 7 9
> 1.33333333
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Let us add another twist, courtesy of David Lambert, to the Exercise 1:
>>
>> Produce a variant of a1, say a1x0 without involving either @. or `:6
>> such that for arbitrary but specific u and N,
>>
>> ( (u a1)N ) -: ( (u a1x0)N ),
>>
>> for example,
>>
>> * a1x0 2 3 5 7
>> 14
>> (1 + %) a1x0 3 5 7 9
>> 1.33333333
>>
>> Clarification (just in case): No one is recommending to use any solutions
>> for a1x0 vs other solutions for a1; this is meant to be a puzzle.
>>
>> P.S. Remember to show spoiler alerts. It is ease to forget; believe me,
>> I know :)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Right, so let us add a twist to the Exercise 1:
>>>
>>> Minor alert for anyone that have not seen Pascal's solution for a1...
>>>
>>> 7
>>> 6
>>> 5
>>> 4
>>> 3
>>> 2
>>> 1
>>> 0
>>>
>>> Produce a1 without involving @. in the code.
>>>
>>> Remember: "Spoiler alerts by instructors and patrons will be
>>> appreciated."
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 3:43 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pascal Jasmin wrote:
>>>>> a0 =:
>>>>> a1 =:
>>>>
>>>> You are confusing the Jym with the Spoilarium, I'm afraid.
>>>>
>>>> Martin Neitzel
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
