Oh I was wrong, thank you for pointing it out. Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Aug, 2017, at 6:28 AM, Jose Mario Quintana <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
