As they are (er... plus the specs you added here) in which message? Thanks,
-- Raul On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
