No joke was intended, undefined names are regarded as verbs in the context
of adverbs and conjunctions. Why? Because it allows for writing verbs in a
top-down fashion if one so desires. (Bill, I know you know most of this,
if not all; but I am putting some context for the potential benefit members
of the forum who might not.)
An error thrown by @.0 does not necessarily mean that the argument is not
a gerund or that it is a nonsensical gerund; I would assume we both agree
that even if v is undefined v`'' is still a gerund. Either way, both
Roger's and Pascal's tests agree on this,
v
|value error: v
gerundYN=: 0 -. @ e. 3 : ('y (5!:0)';'1')"0 :: 0:
isgerund =: 0:`(0 -. @ e. 3 : ('y (5!:0)';'1')"0)@.(0 < L.) :: 0:
gerundYN v`''
1
isgerund v`''
1
Yet,
v`'' @.0
|value error: v
However,
v`'' @.0 /
v/
So, is the literal noun 'v' a gerund or not? A hint follows after
several blank lines,
v
|value error: v
v123
|value error: v123
gerundYN 'v'
1
gerundYN 'v123'
0
isgerund 'v'
0
isgerund 'v123'
0
What is happening?
On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Bill <bbill....@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/0
> 19178.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.
> >>>>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
