Sorry this is off-topic, but I have a quick question. Bill, what book is that?
-------------------------------------------- On Fri, 10/13/17, bill lam <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Jx 1.1 Release To: "Programming forum" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, October 13, 2017, 11:12 AM Raul is correct, as usual. The train N V N was not handled in the rule for trident. Here is the previous pages for execution stack and trains. Monad and dyad were checked in the first 3 rules. Rules for trident and bident were near the bottom. https://i.imgur.com/2a3mBFS.jpg On Oct 13, 2017 8:28 AM, "Raul Miller" <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah, it's from http://www.cs.trinity.edu/About/The_Courses/cs2322/jdoc/ > dict/dictf.htm > > (Bill's link did not claim that that example was a trident, as near as > I can tell.) > > That said, I stand by my assertion that J would not treat (N V N) as a > trident. > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Jose Mario Quintana > <[email protected]> wrote: > > That is not "my" list, check carefully Dan Bron's PS in the first link I > > provided or Bill's link earlier in this thread. > > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Some of your list of "all possible tridents and bidents" would only be > >> possible if other parsing rules were removed or evaded (monad, dyad, > >> adverb, conjunction). > >> > >> For example, the first one you list: > >> N0 V1 N2 noun x V1 y > >> > >> This would typically be a dyad, and I cannot think of any way for it > >> to be treated as a triad (it's true, of course, that when you modify > >> the interpreter it's true that you can alter it in any way you see fit > >> - but it's difficult to think of this result as being J). > >> > >> Was that your intent, or am I missing something? > >> > >> (Or... if you really meant to be discussing not "J" but more "a topic > >> which might interest some people in the J community", shouldn't this > >> kind of discussion go on in a different forum? Perhaps chat?) > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> -- > >> Raul > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Jose Mario Quintana > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > A common goal of the Jx trains and many of the Jx primitives and > foreign > >> > conjunction entities is to lift J's draconian (tacit) function-level > >> > restrictions. Jx facilitates tacit verbs, adverbs, and conjunctions > to > >> act > >> > on nouns, verbs, adverbs and, conjunctions and > >> > produce nouns, verbs, adverbs and, conjunctions. That is, almost any > >> type > >> > entity can act on any type entity to produce any type entity. > >> > > >> > The Jx trains are either completely new or extended implementations of > >> > current or former trains. The Jx trains conform to the general > scheme of > >> > the Parse Table shown on page 2 of the Cheatsheet and the only > difference > >> > vs the current J Parse Table is the Trident parsing entry. > >> > > >> > This extra entry might have a potential negative effect in Jx's > >> performance > >> > vs J; after all, that was one of the reasons given for dropping the > >> Trains > >> > of the Golden Age (for reference I am including, at the end of this > >> post, a > >> > text version which most likely matches the one in the link that Bill > >> > provided earlier). How important is the performance penalty? I > would be > >> > surprised if it is significant; one could try to quantify it although > the > >> > usual caveats would apply (e.g., repeat the experiments several times > to > >> > confirm results). > >> > > >> > First, a few useful definitions follow to facilitate the discussion, > >> > > >> > o=. @: > >> > 'adv conj ver'=. _1 _2 _3 <@?: 0 > >> > fix=. f. ver NB. (a v) form > >> > > >> > > >> > a v <-> v(a) > >> > > >> > This form is non-compliant; thus, it is intrinsic only to Jx. One can > >> use > >> > this form, for instance, to produce easily arrays with single or > multiple > >> > boxed adverb arguments and verbs (or adverbs or conjunctions) can act > on > >> > the array. For example, a single boxed adverb, > >> > > >> > /< > >> > ┌─┐ > >> > │/│ > >> > └─┘ > >> > > >> > and multiple boxed adverbs, > >> > > >> > [:(/\<) (items < o fix o ":) (table < o fix o ":)]: > >> > ┌──┬───┬──────────────────────────────────────────────────── > ──────────┐ > >> > │/\│"_1│1 : (':'; '(((#~LF-.@e.])5!:5<''u'');,.y),.({.;}.)":x,y > u/x')~│ > >> > └──┴───┴──────────────────────────────────────────────────── > ──────────┘ > >> > > >> > This form also helps to avoid quoting adverbs. Apart from aesthetical > >> > effects (my aesthetics anyway), it allows the verb xi, which I have > >> > mentioned before, to refer directly to an adverb (or adverbs) within a > >> > sentence. > >> > > >> > > >> > x (a a) <-> (x a) a > >> > > >> > This form corresponds to the entry > >> > > >> > A0 A1 adv (x A0) A1 > >> > > >> > of the Parse Table of the Golden Age. To my knowledge, it has not > been > >> > fully implemented before. Currently, J only works if the product of > (x > >> a) > >> > is a noun or a verb (there have been discussions about producing the > >> train > >> > if the product of (x a) is an adverb. Jx implements that and also the > >> case > >> > when the product of (x a) is a conjunction. This is very useful when > >> > writing tacit adverbs as a train of adverbs: if ((x a) a) produces the > >> > desired product then the adverb (a a) would work because (x (a a) <-> > (x > >> a) > >> > a). For example, > >> > > >> > 'items' ((~ver) adv) / > >> > items/ > >> > 'items' (((~ver) adv) /) > >> > items/ > >> > > >> > 'items' ('x~' (adverb :)) / > >> > items/ > >> > 'items' (('x~' (adverb :)) \) > >> > items\ > >> > > >> > The last line produces instead a syntax error in J. > >> > > >> > > >> > a c <-> (c)a > >> > > >> > This form is non-compliant; thus, it is also intrinsic only to Jx. > Its > >> > motivation parallels the one for the form (a v <-> v(a)). For > >> example, a > >> > single boxed conjunction, > >> > > >> > <adv (`/) > >> > ┌───┐ > >> > │` /│ > >> > └───┘ > >> > > >> > and multiple boxed conjunctions, > >> > > >> > [:(<adv") (< o fix o ": adv bind)]: > >> > ┌─┬─────────────┐ > >> > │"│2 : 'x@(y"_)'│ > >> > └─┴─────────────┘ > >> > > >> > > >> > The Jx extensions of the corresponding Golden age entries, > >> > > >> > x (c a) y <-> x c y a : C0 A1 conj (x C0 y) A1 > >> > x (a c a) y <-> (x a) c (y a) : A0 C1 A2 conj (x A0) C1 (y A2) > >> > > >> > deserve, in my opinion, a separate thread. I will try to start one > >> during > >> > the weekend (time permitting). Succinctly, the two trains (the first > >> one, > >> > in particular) are powerful enough that if they were restored in > >> official J > >> > interpreters then conjunctional tacit programming would be virtually > >> > complete as opposed to impossible. > >> > > >> > I hope it helps, > >> > > >> > PS. I wish I had more time to read and respond to posts more > frequently; > >> > however, most of the time, I eventually respond if I feel I can still > >> > contribute. Thank you for your patience. > >> > > >> > > >> > Train Table of the Golden Age > >> > > >> > (see, > >> > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009- > December/017146.html > >> > and http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2009- > >> December/017145.html > >> > ) > >> > > >> > The following tables define all possible tridents and bidents, using > >> > italics to denote the optional left arguments of (ambivalent) verbs: > >> > > >> > N0 V1 N2 noun x V1 y > >> > V0 V1 V2 verb (x V0 y) V1 (x V2 y) > >> > V0 V1 C2 conj V0 V1 (x C2 y) > >> > A0 V1 V2 adv (x A0) V1 V2 > >> > C0 V1 V2 conj (x C0 y) V1 V2 > >> > C0 V1 C2 conj (x C0 y) V1 (x C2 y) > >> > A0 A1 V2 conj (x A0) (y A1) V2 > >> > A0 A1 A2 adv ((x A0) A1) A2 > >> > C0 A1 A2 conj ((x C0 y) A1) A2 > >> > N0 C1 N2 verb x (N0 C1 N2) y > >> > N0 C1 V2 verb x (N0 C1 V2) y > >> > N0 C1 A2 adv N0 C1 (x A2) > >> > N0 C1 C2 conj N0 C1 (x C2 y) > >> > V0 C1 N2 verb x (V0 C1 N2) y > >> > V0 C1 V2 verb x (V0 C1 V2) y > >> > V0 C1 A2 adv V0 C1 (x A2) > >> > V0 C1 C2 conj V0 C1 (x C2 y) > >> > A0 C1 N2 adv (x A0) C1 N2 > >> > A0 C1 V2 adv (x A0) C1 V2 > >> > A0 C1 A2 conj (x A0) C1 (y A2) > >> > A0 C1 C2 conj (x A0) C1 (x C2 y) > >> > C0 C1 N2 conj (x C0 y) C1 N2 > >> > C0 C1 V2 conj (x C0 y) C1 V2 > >> > C0 C1 A2 conj (x C0 y) C1 (y A2) > >> > C0 C1 C2 conj (x C0 y) C1 (x C2 y) > >> > N0 A1 verb x (N0 A1) y > >> > N0 C1 adv N0 C1 x > >> > V0 N1 noun V0 y > >> > V0 V1 verb x (or y) V0 V1 y > >> > V0 A1 verb x (V0 A1) y > >> > V0 C1 adv V0 C1 x > >> > A0 V1 adv (x A0) V1 > >> > A0 A1 adv (x A0) A1 > >> > A0 C1 adv (x A0) C1 x > >> > C0 N1 adv x C0 N1 > >> > C0 V1 adv x C0 V1 > >> > C0 A1 conj (x C0 y) A1 > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:51 AM, Erling Hellenäs < > >> [email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi all ! > >> >> > >> >> I have a hard time finding the new rules among these old rules. > >> >> > >> >> While in the Jx description x and y denotes verbs, in Ken Iversons > >> >> description they denote nouns? > >> >> > >> >> Take the bident a0 v1. According to Ken Iverson it should be parsed > as > >> (x > >> >> a0) v1, while in Jx, using the same notation, it is parsed as (v1 > a0) y > >> ? > >> >> > >> >> Does Jx represent a new way of thinking about how these trains should > >> be > >> >> parsed, which Ken Iverson did not have? > >> >> > >> >> Cheers, > >> >> > >> >> Erling Hellenäs > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Den 2017-10-12 kl. 04:09, skrev bill lam: > >> >> > >> >>> As mentioned earlier, ancient J had a more complete set of > >> >>> rules for tridents and bidents. This is what availbale in > >> >>> J circa 1994 (23 years ago) > >> >>> > >> >>> https://i.imgur.com/OtBZZq1.jpg > >> >>> > >> >>> In the good old days, adverbs and conjunctions can be > >> >>> written without explicit definitions, albeit only very > >> >>> few can manage to do that. > >> >>> > >> >>> Ср, 11 окт 2017, Erling Hellenäs написал(а): > >> >>> > >> >>>> Hi all! > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I finally managed to understand Cloak. I then with interest studied > >> these > >> >>>> new syntax rules: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> av ↔ v(a) > >> >>>> x(a a) ↔ (x a) a > >> >>>> ac ↔ (c)a > >> >>>> x(c a) y ↔ x c y a > >> >>>> x(a c a) y ↔ (x a) c (y a) > >> >>>> > >> >>>> It all seemed logical and nice. I just wonder about the thoughts > >> behind. > >> >>>> What is the logic behind these rules? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I also wonder if there are any negative effects of having these > rules. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Cheers, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Erling Hellenäs > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On 2017-09-30 23:27, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> Jx 1.1 Release > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> A Jx v1.1 Extensions Guide, a J/Jx Cheatsheet, a Jx Assertions > script > >> >>>>> together with links to a Windows 64 bit dll, a Unix 64 bit so > >> binaries > >> >>>>> (without avx support) and the patch corresponding to the J806 > source > >> >>>>> (beta-6) can be found at the link [0]. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Summary > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> - Primitives > >> >>>>> Added =.. =:: $:: [. ]. ]: ".. `. &:.(*) ?:(*) i.. O. > >> >>>>> Extended ~ $. > >> >>>>> Modified " (*) > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> - Foreign > >> >>>>> Added 104!:5 Unnamed Execution 102!:0/1 In-place > >> >>>>> Amend/Append (*) > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> - Trains > >> >>>>> a v Added > >> >>>>> a a Extended > >> >>>>> c a Resurrected and extended (*) > >> >>>>> a c a Resurrected and extended (*) > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> - Spelling > >> >>>>> Names with Unicode characters > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> (*) New Jx 1.1 feature > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> This release introduces a modified primitive (") and, in theory, > for > >> the > >> >>>>> first time an incompatibility vs the official J counterpart (J806 > >> >>>>> beta-6) ; > >> >>>>> however, in practice, it is highly unlikely to break any existent > >> code > >> >>>>> and > >> >>>>> doubters have an opportunity to test their code. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> This is a simple 1-decade-old example [1], > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> ]`|."1 i.5 6 > >> >>>>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 > >> >>>>> 11 10 9 8 7 6 > >> >>>>> 12 13 14 15 16 17 > >> >>>>> 23 22 21 20 19 18 > >> >>>>> 24 25 26 27 28 29 > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> See also the threads [2, 3] for recent discussions. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> The rank of the verb ?: has been changed to 0 0 0 to make it > easier > >> to > >> >>>>> use. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Three venerable facilities are released: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> - The conjunction (&:.), for the motivation, see the post [4] (see > >> also > >> >>>>> the > >> >>>>> post [5] both, its reference and the embedded discussion for > similar > >> >>>>> more > >> >>>>> recent ideas). > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> - 102!:0/1 In-place Amend/Append, be very careful (see [6]); if > you > >> do > >> >>>>> not > >> >>>>> know what to expect, play with their corresponding models instead. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> PS. There are a couple of other goodies which will be documented > >> later. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> References > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [0] Jx 1.1 Release > >> >>>>> http://www.2bestsystems.com/foundation/j/jx1.1 > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [1] [Jprogramming] zig-zag order Oleg Kobchenko > >> >>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2006- > November > >> >>>>> /004188.htm > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [2] [Jprogramming] How m"n shoulda been defined Henry Rich > >> >>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2015- > August/0 > >> >>>>> 42512.html > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [3] [Jprogramming] Jx version 1.0 release Henry Rich > >> >>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2017- > August/0 > >> >>>>> 48124.html > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [4] [Jforum] Wasted intermediate values Jose Mario Quintana > >> >>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2003-March/ > >> 014488.html > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [5] [Jprogramming] Fold/reduce with initial value? R.E. Boss > >> >>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2015- > February > >> >>>>> /041015.html > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> [6] [Jprogramming] Tacit J and indexed replacement Jose Mario > >> Quintana > >> >>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2014- > July/038 > >> >>>>> 515.html > >> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> ---------- > >> >>>>> 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 > >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
