Well, I suppose this might have been what you were getting at:
S
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
.
.
.
a1x1=: {. $: {: :
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Jose Mario Quintana
<[email protected]> wrote:
> The original rules for a1x1 can be found in the message:
>
> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2016-April/044888.html
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
