:: 0

Is a j8.06 feature.

Henry Rich

On Aug 8, 2017 23:42, "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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to