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

Reply via email to