:D Now I am the one quite confused with your notion of "pure tacit verb"
based on transitivity. Why? Because, when I pointed out that the verb,
'`u v' (1 : '(m)=:y')
had an explicit appendage, your response was,
if we claim that ('abc' is) is not a "pure tacit verb"
because it contains a non-tacit adverb, that logic would
suggest that +/ is not a pure tacit verb because it contains
an adverb.
Would you mind to clarify your early claim,
And yet, all of your verbs can be pure tacit.
For example, you could use
is=:1 :'(m)=:y'
by providing a specific example of using your adverb is to produce a
"pure tacit verb" according to your notion based on transitivity?
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Except, 'A' (1 : '(m)=: y') would not be an example of a either a pure
> tacit verb, especially when you consider (transitively) its components
> (which are not all verbs, and most certainly are not all pure tacit
> verbs).
>
> (Which, perhaps, is to suggest that once again I do not really know
> what you are thinking.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
>
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > That makes sense; transitive pure (I hope you do not mind if I use that
> > term) tacit verbs seem to be an interesting notion.
> >
> > I think an argument can be made that transitive pure tacit verbs might
> not
> > be necessarily tacit verbs, for example, those produced by your adverb
> is :
> >
> > ( tptv=. 'A' is=. 1 : '(m)=: y' ) NB. A transitive pure tacit verb
> > 'A' (1 : '(m)=: y')
> >
> > To what word does the name y , in the linear representation of tptv
> (that
> > is, in the line above), refer? According to the Dictionary "an adverb
> may
> > refer to its left argument (using u) as well as to the arguments of the
> > resulting verb (x and y)." Therefore, the name y refers to the right
> > argument of the resulting verb, which is none other than the verb tptv .
> > The same justification can be made for arguments other than the 'A'
> value.
> >
> > Either way, while testing my adverb tp I was disappointed that
> sometimes
> > one has to name its argument; otherwise, one might get an error,
> >
> > % tp tp
> > |open quote
> > | (' (1 : 0)
> > (%) y
> > :
> > x (u ] (%)) y
> > )) y
> > | ^
> > | A=.''1 :('('' (1 : 0)
> > (%) y
> > :
> > x (u ] (%)) y
> > )) y';':';'x (u ] ('' (1 : 0)
> > (%) y
> > :
> > x (u ] (%)) y
> > ))) y')
> >
> > I understand why the error occurs but I was wondering if there is a
> utility
> > adverb similar to fix (f.) for explicit constructions where the names
> that
> > occur in the definition of an explicit word (entity) are (recursively)
> > replaced by their referents. I am asking this question just out of
> > curiosity; I am aware that locales are used to try to avoid name
> collisions.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, my thought was that if the presence of the explicit
> >> conjunction is transitive for verb structure, the presence of all
> >> non-verbs would similarly be transitive in the structure. This would
> >> mean that only trains composed of verbs could truly be pure.
> >>
> >> That said I do understand that that was not your thought.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Raul
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > Unfortunately "that logic would suggest that +/ is not a pure tacit
> verb
> >> > because it contains an adverb" might work for your notion of "pure
> tacit
> >> > verb" but certainly does not work for the notion I had in mind when I
> >> wrote
> >> > "producing (pure) tacit verbs." I meant pure tacit in the sense of
> pure:
> >> > "not mixed with anything else" or "containing nothing that does not
> >> > properly belong" or "free of any contamination [no offense]."
> >> >
> >> > Who knows? Maybe your notion of a pure tacit verb could prevail and
> be
> >> > very convenient. For instance, if someone asks:
> >> >
> >> > How can I make the verb load tacit?
> >> >
> >> > One could answer:
> >> >
> >> > You can make the verb load a pure tacit verb easily using the tacit
> >> > purifier adverb,
> >> >
> >> > tp=. 1 : 0 NB. Beware of the line-wrapping...
> >> > A=. (''''' 1 : (''' , ] , ' y'' ; '':'' ;''x (u ] ' , ] , (')
> y'')')"_)
> >> > '(' , ((5!:5)<'u') , ')'
> >> > ". 'A=. ' , A
> >> > A f.
> >> > )
> >> >
> >> > puretacitload=. load tp
> >> >
> >> > puretacitload'plot'
> >> > plot (1 + %:)^:(i.13) 0
> >> >
> >> > You can can also make a tacit verb pure tacit,
> >> >
> >> > pure_rd=. %tp NB. Pure tacit reciprocal divide
> >> >
> >> > pure_rd 3
> >> > 0.333333
> >> > 2 pure_rd 3
> >> > 0.666667
> >> >
> >> > You can make pure_rd even more pure, and so on,
> >> >
> >> > pure_pure_rd=. pure_rd tp
> >> > pure_pure_rd 3
> >> > 0.333333
> >> > 2 pure_pure_rd 3
> >> > 0.666667
> >> >
> >> > The pure pure tacitness of pure_pure_rd can be appreciated in all its
> >> > splendor,
> >> >
> >> > pure_pure_rd
> >> > '' (1 : 0)
> >> > (pure_rd) y
> >> > :
> >> > x (u ] (pure_rd)) y
> >> > )
> >> >
> >> > where
> >> > pure_rd
> >> > '' (1 : 0)
> >> > (%) y
> >> > :
> >> > x (u ] (%)) y
> >> > )
> >> >
> >> > ;)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Given is=:1 :'(m)=:y'
> >> >>
> >> >> if we claim that ('abc' is) is not a "pure tacit verb" because it
> >> >> contains a non-tacit adverb, that logic would suggest that +/ is not
> a
> >> >> pure tacit verb because it contains an adverb. We can certainly say
> >> >> that +/ is a tacit verb, but it's not purely made of pure tacit
> >> >> verbs...
> >> >>
> >> >> ---
> >> >>
> >> >> As for the use of globals for arguments, pure tacitness seems even
> >> >> lower there, both because of the use of (globally) named arguments,
> >> >> and because of the introduction of a potential failure mode (where
> >> >> "unrelated" verb invocations can stomp on each other).
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Raul
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> > Exactly, you might have the right to say,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "
> >> >> > And yet, all of your verbs can be pure tacit.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > For example, you could use
> >> >> >
> >> >> > is=:1 :'(m)=:y'
> >> >> > "
> >> >> >
> >> >> > but the verb,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I_am_a_pure_tacit_verb=: '`u v' is
> >> >> >
> >> >> > fails,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I_am_a_pure_tacit_verb +/`*:
> >> >> > |domain error: I_am_a_pure_tacit_verb
> >> >> > | (m) =:y
> >> >> >
> >> >> > because "the biggest problem here is the use of globals for
> >> arguments."
> >> >> > How come? Because the verb has an explicit appendage,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I_am_a_pure_tacit_verb
> >> >> > '`u v' (1 : '(m)=:y')
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Despite its relative complexity and potential performance issues ,
> I
> >> >> rather
> >> >> > use (while employing an official J interpreter) a tacit verb such
> as,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > nrep=: ('3!:2 a.{~' ,&": a. i. 3!:1) NB. :)
> >> >> > is=: ".@:('(' , nrep@:[ , ')=: ' , nrep@:]) f.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > because, in contrast, it "... quacks and swims like a duck..."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > ".@:('(' , ('3!:2 a.{~' ,&": a. i. 3!:1)@:[ , ')=: ' , ('3!:2 a.{~'
> >> ,&":
> >> >> a.
> >> >> > i. 3!:1)@:])
> >> >> >
> >> >> > '`u v' is +/`*:
> >> >> > ┌───────┬──┐
> >> >> > │┌─┬───┐│*:│
> >> >> > ││/│┌─┐││ │
> >> >> > ││ ││+│││ │
> >> >> > ││ │└─┘││ │
> >> >> > │└─┴───┘│ │
> >> >> > └───────┴──┘
> >> >> >
> >> >> > u@:v f.
> >> >> > +/@:*:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Raul Miller <
> [email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Sure, and the biggest problem here is the use of globals for
> >> arguments.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The verbs themselves can be pure, but all we're really doing is
> >> >> >> rearranging the deck chairs.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Raul
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> > At least we agree, I think, on one thing " in explicit
> programming
> >> >> >> > [typically] names refer to arguments while in tacit programming
> >> they
> >> >> do
> >> >> >> > not." Thus, is not just a matter of tacit aesthetics, there are
> >> some
> >> >> >> > consequences which might be difficult to evade:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > ('`u v') =: +/`*:
> >> >> >> > u@:v f.
> >> >> >> > +/@:*:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > ('`u v') =:: +/`*: NB. Jx
> >> >> >> > ┌───────┬──┐
> >> >> >> > │┌─┬───┐│*:│
> >> >> >> > ││/│┌─┐││ │
> >> >> >> > ││ ││+│││ │
> >> >> >> > ││ │└─┘││ │
> >> >> >> > │└─┴───┘│ │
> >> >> >> > └───────┴──┘
> >> >> >> > u@:v f.
> >> >> >> > +/@:*:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > ('`u v') is +/`*: NB.
> >> >> >> > |domain error
> >> >> >> > | (m) =:y
> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> > 1 : '(m)=:y'
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So, assuming I understood the intended use of your adverb is,
> I am
> >> >> >> afraid
> >> >> >> > your adverb cannot be used without typical limitations.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Raul Miller <
> >> [email protected]>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> I think you are trying to evade a basic issue, which is that
> the
> >> >> >> >> distinction between tacit and explicit programming is that in
> >> >> explicit
> >> >> >> >> programming names refer to arguments while in tacit programming
> >> they
> >> >> >> >> do not.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Altering the implementation to come up with evasive ways of
> having
> >> >> >> >> named arguments is what's stinky, from my point of view.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Thanks though,
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> Raul
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > Nice try but when I am wearing my hard-core tacit programmer
> >> hat I
> >> >> do
> >> >> >> not
> >> >> >> >> > like to look at blatant ugly explicit definitions which are
> >> >> referring
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> > arguments. ;) Heck, I do not like the smell of verbs of this
> >> kind
> >> >> >> >> either,
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > stinky=. ('''' , [ , '''' , a. {~ 38 40 52 32 58 39 40 120
> 41 61
> >> >> 58 32
> >> >> >> >> 121
> >> >> >> >> > 39 41"_) 128!:2 ]
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > PS. Feel free to bring any argument suggesting that verbs
> >> involving
> >> >> >> side
> >> >> >> >> > effects are not tacit.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Raul Miller <
> >> >> [email protected]>
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> And yet, all of your verbs can be pure tacit.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> For example, you could use
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> is=:1 :'(m)=:y'
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> That said, there is an argument that side effects make a
> verb
> >> >> impure.
> >> >> >> >> But I
> >> >> >> >> >> am ignoring that kind of thing.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> >> Raul
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> On Friday, July 14, 2017, Jose Mario Quintana <
> >> >> >> >> >> [email protected]>
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > That is a different matter.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > Indeed, "=: works and is simple" as long as one is not
> >> concerned
> >> >> >> about
> >> >> >> >> >> > producing (pure) tacit verbs. In that latter context,
> >> >> apparently,
> >> >> >> it
> >> >> >> >> >> does
> >> >> >> >> >> > not work well, is not simple to use and its forced use
> might
> >> >> >> trigger
> >> >> >> >> >> gross
> >> >> >> >> >> > space and time inefficiencies (for example, as discussed
> >> >> recently
> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> >> > "[Jprogramming] Side effects in tacit expressions"
> thread).
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > Introducing new primitives is, in my view, a matter of
> >> >> perspective
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> >> >> > opportunity. I thought the verbs =.. and =:: had
> sufficient
> >> >> >> merits
> >> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> >> >> I
> >> >> >> >> >> > had the means to include them in the version of the J
> >> >> interpreter
> >> >> >> >> that I
> >> >> >> >> >> > use almost all the time (Jx). I just thought this could
> be
> >> an
> >> >> >> >> >> opportunity
> >> >> >> >> >> > to make the official interpreter a little more tacit
> friendly
> >> >> for
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> >> > benefit of other tacit programming hard-core fans; that is
> >> all.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > In any case, there are other much more important
> unfortunate
> >> >> >> >> omissions,
> >> >> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> >> >> > current official implementations, that drastically hinder
> >> tacit
> >> >> >> >> >> programming
> >> >> >> >> >> > (but that is yet another topic for another time).
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ----------
> >> >> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forum
> >> s.htm
> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >> >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forum
> s.htm
> >> >>
> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forum
> s.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
