"I still like the @.] test."

What am I doing wrong?  I have tried several times and I keep getting,

   JVERSION
Engine: j805/j64/windows
Release: commercial/2016-12-11T08:02:16
Library: 8.05.11
Qt IDE: 1.5.3/5.7.0
Platform: Win 64
Installer: J805 install
InstallPath: c:/program files/j
Contact: www.jsoftware.com


   IsGerund=: 3 : 0 :: 0
  y@.]
  1
)
|domain error
|   IsGerund=:3 :0     ::0
|[-4]


Anyway, I was able to write it in Win Jx and it should not make any
difference,

IsGerund=: 3 : 0 :: 0
  y@.]
  1
)

Assuming I got it right, this how does your test compare to Roger's and
Pascal's for testing  ;:'+/' ,

   test=. gerundYN ; isgerund ; IsGerund

   test ;:'+/'
┌─┬─┬─┐
│1│1│0│
└─┴─┴─┘

In my mind,  ;:'+/'  is both, a gerund and a valid train,

   (;:'+/')`:6
+/
   (;:'+/')@.0 1
+/


On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Louis de Forcrand <ol...@bluewin.ch> wrote:

> @.] should be used, not @.0 :
>
>    v
> |value error: v
>    v123
> |value error: v123
>    v`''@.]
> v@.]
>    v123`''@.]
> v123@.]
>
> I still like the @.] test.
>
> Louis
>
> > On 07 Aug 2017, at 19:26, 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

Reply via email to