Sorry, that one went away early,

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


On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <
jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "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