Ok, so... let's see if I understand the new rules -- our a1x1 expression must exclude all of these adverbs: / (128!:2) (5!:0)
and these conjunctions: & &. &.: &: @ @. @: or `: and these verbs: [: ". 128!:2 ":^:_1 and we must avoid "string evaluation where the strings are not gerunds" (whatever that exactly means... maybe it's avoiding strings which contain more than one token when parsed by ;: and also requires all remaining strings to be boxed? I'm actually not completely sure...) That leaves us with these primitive adverbs: /. \ \. } b. f. M. t. t: And, these primitive conjunctions ^: . .. .: : :. :: ;. !. !: " ` d. D. D: H. L: S: T. And most of the primitive verbs. Except, of course the "avoid string evaluation" limits : and !: (though see above for my uncertainty about the exact scope of that limitation). Given this whole "spirit" issue, I guess I should imagine that the use of non-primitive names is also excluded. Thanks, -- Raul On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Dan Bron <[email protected]> wrote: > ]\. '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
