One can strengthen the rules but I would leave them as they are and see instead very interesting tricks that can be applied to circumvent them, so far, they have been illuminating :)
Concise (tacit) solutions are, in my mind, elegant. An elegant measure of elegance is: # 5!:5 <'a1x1' So, personally, I would prefer to see elegant solutions but any solution is welcome. Imposing more and more constraints would eventually describe a particular elegant solution and can be regarded as hints or ┌─┐ │S│ ├─┤ │p│ ├─┤ │o│ ├─┤ │i│ ├─┤ │l│ ├─┤ │e│ ├─┤ │r│ ├─┤ │s│ ├─┤ │.│ ├─┤ │.│ ├─┤ │.│ └─┘ So, here there are a few more rules/hints for those who want to see them: - The tie conjunction ^: is not involved either - The foreign conjunction !: is not involved either - The evoke gerund conjunction `: is not involved (either) - The power conjunction ` is not involved - No, no pro-nouns, pro-verbs, pro-adverbs, pro-conjunctions are involved - No string evaluation is involved - Neither gerund nor atomic representation evaluation is involved! Let us cut to the chase; forget these additional rules/hints and consider the, elegant measure of, elegance of one particular interesting solution: # 5!:5 <'a1x1' 12 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
