I am not sure if I understand your question. If you asked something undefined is a gerund or not. I checked by executing v@.0 '' and the J interpreter said value error. Sounds like an empty array joke to me.
Sent from my iPhone On 7 Aug, 2017, at 5:23 AM, Jose Mario Quintana <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am not hoping to change people's minds; nevertheless, I would like to > explain, to some degree, my rationale regarding my current notion of what a > gerund is. > > The Dictionary is famous (or infamous according to some?) for its > terseness. It is not really surprising to me that different people have > different understandings even regarding the very important concept of > gerund. Personally, I use Dictionary as the primary source but > complemented by other official documents, forum information (particularly > opinions and statements from certain people), third party sources, and > first and foremost the "real thing", the interpreter(s) which it is, after > all, where programs and utilities for writing programs, some of which are > very important to me, run. > > Let me start with the (current version of the) Dictionary, this is how I > perceive it, given its terseness, the statement "Verbs act upon nouns to > produce noun results..." is generally interpreted as "Verbs act upon nouns > [and only nouns] to produce noun [and only noun] results..." and other > supporting evidence clearly confirm that is the intention. > > Therefore, assuming that the Dictionary is consistent, then the statement > related to the to the entry Tie (Gerund), > " > More generally, tie produces gerunds as follows: u`v is au,av , where au > and av are the (boxed noun) atomic representations (5!:1) of u and v . > Moreover, m`n is m,n and m`v is m,av and u`n is au,n . See Bernecky and Hui > [12]. Gerunds may also be produced directly by boxing. > " > could be intrepreted as "... tie produces gerunds [and only gerunds]..." > (I know that, actually , tie can produce also nouns which are not gerunds; > just as a verbs can produce words which are not a nouns.) > > Incidentally, I do not regard foreings as part of the core language either > but they are in the Dictionary, and they are used to illustrate points, > even when discussing a primitive (see (5!:1) above). > > Furthermore, "Moreover, m`n is m,n and m`v is m,av and u`n is au,n" > suggests that both, the left and right arguments do not have to be verbs. > Indeed, the gerund (produced by) +`-`* is equivalent to (+`-)`* and (+`-) > is not a verb it is a gerund (i.e, a noun). > > The last sentence "Gerunds may also be produced directly by boxing" is > quite important in the context of last part of that page, > " > The atomic representation of a noun (used so as to distinguish a noun such > as '+' from the verb +) is given by the following function: > (ar=: [: < (,'0')"_ ; ]) '+' > +-----+ > |+-+-+| > ||0|+|| > |+-+-+| > +-----+ > > *`(ar '+') > +-+-----+ > |*|+-+-+| > | ||0|+|| > | |+-+-+| > +-+-----+ > " > > There, clearly, the right argument (ar '+') of ` is the atomic > representation of a noun ('+') not a verb. That is, *`(ar '+') is a gerund > and, for example, G=. (*:`ar 0 1 2) is a gerund well. > > Let me jump to the Dictionary's entry for Evoke Gerund (`:), > " > m `: 6 Train Result is the train of individual verbs. > " > > Right, it is referring to a train of verbs but the entry is Evoke Gerund > and G (defined above) is a gerund which makes sense (to me) as a train; so > I expect G`:6 to work, and it does, > > G`:6 > 0 1 4 > > Let me jump to the Dictionary's entry for Agenda (@.), > > " > m@.n is a verb defined by the gerund m with an agenda specified by n ; that > is, the verb represented by the train selected from m by the indices n . If > n is boxed, the train is parenthesized accordingly. The case m@.v uses the > result of the verb v to perform the selection. > " > > Again, verbs are mentioned; yet again, I expect G@.0 1 to work, and it does, > > G@.0 1 > 0 1 4 > > Incidentally, if is not for producing code (and executing code), what is > the purpose of "If n is boxed, the train is parenthesized accordingly. The > case m@.v uses the result of the verb v to perform the selection" (see > above)? > > What did the original co-designer and implementor of the language write, in > the post I mentioned before, responding to the question, how to test for a > gerund? > > Here it is, > " > [Jprogramming] how to test for a gerund Roger Hui > gerundYN=: 0 -. at e. 3 : ('y (5!:0)';'1')"0 :: 0: > > gerundYN +`* > 1 > gerundYN <'0';i.5 > 1 > gerundYN <i.5 > 0 > gerundYN 5!:1 <'gerundYN' > 1 > > See also http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dx005.htm#1 > " > > He used a foreign (5!:0) to write his testing verb, he "produced directly > by boxing" a gerund and tested it ( gerundYN <'0';i.5 ), and he used a > foreign to produce a gerund and tested it ( gerundYN 5!:1 <'gerundYN' ). > > I could keep going but all the above is enough for me to justify my opinion > that a gerund is not merely a list of atomic representations of verbs. > Ultimately, it does not matter what name (gerund, gerundive, etc.), if any, > is given to these entities; different people at different times have used > these > AND related entities in the context of `:6 , and @. . I, for one, would > not be a happy camper if the official interpreter is changed in such a way > that my programs and utilities for writing programs break down, even if I > have an alternative. > > Finally, I would like to pose a simple yet subtle question to those who do > not regard a gerund as merely a list of of atomic representations of verbs, > > erase'v' > 1 > > gerundYN 'v' NB. Roger's test... > 1 > > isgerund =: 0:`(0 -. @ e. 3 : ('y (5!:0)';'1')"0)@.(0 < L.) :: 0: > > isgerund 'v' NB. Pascal's test > 0 > > Is 'v' a gerund or not? > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Bill <bbill....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> From my understanding, the reference shows the atomic representation of >> gerund. It does not advocate this a way to construct a gerund. moreover it >> is "foreign" conjunction. >> >> numbers can be converted from strings using foreign conjunction but it >> doesn't mean J encourages writing numbers using this method. >> >> IMO foreign conjunction is not a part of J core. >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 4 Aug, 2017, at 5:33 AM, Jose Mario Quintana < >> jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> " >>> In J dictionary, only tie conjunction >>> on verbs was mentioned to produce a gerund. >>> " >>> >>> I am afraid you might not be the only one who has reached such >> conclusion. >>> Nevertheless, in my opinion, it is a misconception that a gerund can only >>> be a list (of atomic representations) of verbs. Why? See [0] in the >>> context of [1]. >>> >>> [0] Atomic >>> http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dx005.htm#1 >>> >>> [1] [Jprogramming] how to test for a gerund Roger Hui >>> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2010-April/019178.html >>> >>> Mind you gerundYN is not bulletproof. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 5:46 AM, bill lam <bbill....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I am thinking of the opposite. In J dictionary, only tie conjunction >>>> on verbs was mentioned to produce a gerund. Boxed verbs had not been >>>> mentioned. Atomic representation of boxed verbs looks like that of >>>> gerund and therefore can work as gerund. IMO this is a backdoor >>>> provided by J implementation. >>>> >>>> Metadata could be attached to "real" gerunds that have ancestors which >>>> were results of verb`verb. All other nouns without this DNA would be >>>> regarded as non-gerund. >>>> >>>> Just my 2 cents. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Marshall Lochbaum <mwlochb...@gmail.com >>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Can I just point out that it's not too late to add some (documented) >> way >>>>> to box verbs/adverbs/conjunctions? These could be treated as gerunds by >>>>> everything that currently uses gerunds, and the interpreter can just >>>>> throw an error if anything attempts to actually unbox them. They are >>>>> much harder to confuse than the current gerunds, and will have far >>>>> better performance. >>>>> >>>>> This sounds like a radical divergence from the way J works now, but I >>>>> don't think it is in practice. Programmers would use some new >>>>> conjunction to replace (`), and provided they don't inspect the >>>>> structure of gerunds nothing else changes. I suppose there would need >> to >>>>> be a way to check what class of object a box contains, because unboxing >>>>> to check the type is not allowed. Gerunds would remain useful for >>>>> programmers who want to inspect functions or build them from scratch, >>>>> but would otherwise become obselete. >>>>> >>>>> Marshall >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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