Inline comments follow...
> I would say neither gerundYN or isgerund is correct, they should report
value error. Even J interpreter itself does not know if undefined name is a
verb or not, J can only assume it is a verb but it can be wrong since
unbound name is free to be assigned to any value. Your question should be
-- should an undefined name assumed to be a gerund. But I think this is
implementation dependent. BTW undefined name can also be regarded as noun
or domain error in implementation and still be compatible with J
dictionary, although it will be then become quite inconvenient to use.
>
I am not sure about that; the Dictionary does not cover some implementation
details but apparently it covers this one: "The executions in the stack are
confined to the first four elements only, and eligibility for execution is
determined only by the class of each element (noun, verb, etc., an
unassigned name being treated as a verb), as prescribed in the following
parse table." [0]
(I forgot to mention the odd word copula which in this context is , of
course, key for writing verbs in top-down fashion.)
> Please don't get me wrong, I didn't mean Jx is incorrect. On the
contrary, Jx is enlightening. only that it is not the old J that I am
familiar with.
I did not get you wrong Bill; however, I really appreciate your entire
comment, thanks for making it.
[0] E. Parsing and Execution
http://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/dicte.htm
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Bill <bbill....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would say neither gerundYN or isgerund is correct, they should report
> value error. Even J interpreter itself does not know if undefined name is a
> verb or not, J can only assume it is a verb but it can be wrong since
> unbound name is free to be assigned to any value. Your question should be
> -- should an undefined name assumed to be a gerund. But I think this is
> implementation dependent. BTW undefined name can also be regarded as noun
> or domain error in implementation and still be compatible with J
> dictionary, although it will be then become quite inconvenient to use.
>
> Please don't get me wrong, I didn't mean Jx is incorrect. On the
> contrary, Jx is enlightening. only that it is not the old J that I am
> familiar with.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 8 Aug, 2017, at 7:26 AM, Jose Mario Quintana <
> jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
