The hint I mentioned shows that Roger's test is inconsistent,
erase'v v123'
1 1
gerundYN=: 0 -. @ e. 3 : ('y (5!:0)';'1')"0 :: 0:
gerundYN 'v'
1
gerundYN 'v123'
0
Whereas Pascal's test (loosly based on David Alis' atomicYN [0]) is
consistent,
isgerund=. 0:`(0 -.@e. 3 : ('y (5!:0)';'1')"0) @.(0 < L.) :: 0:
isgerund 'v'
0
isgerund 'v123'
0
What tripped gerundYN? Any guesses? ;)
Arrays of atomic representations of verbs, not surprisingly, pass the test,
for example, for undefined verbs v0, v1, v2, v3,
assert v0`v1`v2`v3 -: <;._1 ' v0 v1 v2 v3'
isgerund v0`v1`v2`v3
1
isgerund 2 2$v0`v1`v2`v3
1
Gerund evoke (`:6) requires a list but the atomic representations can
include nouns, verbs, adverbs, and conjunctions, for example,
((;:'+/"') , (<(,'0');1))
┌─┬─┬─┬─────┐
│+│/│"│┌─┬─┐│
│ │ │ ││0│1││
│ │ │ │└─┴─┘│
└─┴─┴─┴─────┘
((;:'+/"') , (<(,'0');1))`:6
+/"1
Interestingly, `:6 can also evoke nouns that are not gerunds and this is
a great feature, from my vantage point, because it facilitates writing
compliant and noncompliant tacit adverbs (and tacit conjunctions in Jx).
In summary, a gerund can be thought as an array of atomic representations
(see also, [1, 2]), and regardless of the name this notion that has served
me well for a long time.
References
[0] [Jprogramming] how to test for a gerund David Alis
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2010-April/019187.html
[1] sidebar: gerunds
http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/User:Dan_Bron/backtick#sidebar:_gerunds
[2] Atomic Representation
http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/IojRep#Atomic_Representation
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Bill <bbill....@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
