Look carefully at my first post [0] as I suggested (using a browser), the
line,
(a0=. `'') (a1=. (@:[) ((<'&')`) (`:6)) (a2=. (`(<(":0);_)) (`:6))
defines a0, a1 and a2, the next line is J's response
((`'')(((@:[)(&`))(`:6)))((`_)(`:6)) and the next line,
av=. ((ar'a0')`) (`(ar'a1')) (`(ar'a2') ) (`:6)
is where ar'a2' is used.
[0] [Jprogramming] Trains: past, present and ... Jose Mario Quintana
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2017-October/049263.html
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Please re-read my message?
>
> Yes, the line quoted in my error message got wrapped. However, I have
> no reason [yet] to believe that it was incomplete.
>
> But... your quoting of that error message wrapped it further for me. I
> do not know if that wrapping happened before you got my message or
> after. But I would hope at the very least that you would recognize
> that the error message contained [even if wrapped] what I believed was
> the line that's throwing the error.
>
> Anyways... I do not see how "beware of line wrapping" solves anything
> here. Not yet, anyways.
>
> That said, if you really want to avoid line wrap issues, I would
> recommend using pastebin.
>
> (But, my reading of the code suggests that a2 would still be undefined
> if it's run in a fresh session. And, I suspect you could see this for
> yourself if you take that erase line from your message and include it
> at the top of your script. Be sure, of course, to be running J and not
> Jx...)
>
> Anyways, I'm willing to believe that I have made a mistake. And I
> might even be convinced that I missed some sort of line wrap issue.
> But, right now, I'm definitely not seeing it. (And, as verification:
> every line in my copy of the code is indented - but line-wrap leaves
> unindented lines.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > No, a2 is defined previously; recall "beware of line-wrapping."
> >
> > In addition, what I showed was a session output, not a clean script. If
> > your email formatting is giving you a hard time, try to look at the
> version
> > of my post in the forum archive.
> >
> > I hope it helps
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> When I try to execute your script, I get:
> >>
> >> |value error: a2
> >> | (a0=.`'')(a1=.(@:[)((<'&')`)(`:6))(a2=.(`(<(":0);_))(`:6))(
> >> (`'')(((@:[)(&`))(`:6)))((`_)(`:6))av=.((ar'a0')`)(`(ar'a1'))(`(
> >> ar'a2'))(`:6)
> >> |[-3] /users/rauldmiller/j64-805-user/temp/2.ijs
> >> 9!:14''
> >> j805/j64/darwin/beta-9/commercial/www.jsoftware.com/2016-07-05T17:11:06
> >>
> >> And, indeed, it does look like you are referring to ar'a2' before
> >> you define a2.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Raul
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > There were many adverb and conjunction producing trains during a
> period
> >> > which Henry has referred as the Golden Age. Some were available as
> early
> >> > as 1993 [0] and several more afterward [1]. A few of those adverb
> >> > producing trains (all of them bidents) survived [2] (using nv to
> denote
> >> > noun or verb),
> >> >
> >> > "
> >> > x (a1 a2) is x a1 a2
> >> > x (c nv) is x c nv
> >> > x (nv c) is nv c x
> >> > "
> >> >
> >> > but none of the conjunction producing trains did. Nevertheless, I
> >> learned
> >> > to appreciate very much two of them (a trident and a bident), together
> >> with
> >> > the survivors, many years after they were decommissioned,
> >> >
> >> > "
> >> > x (a1 c2 a3) y is (x a1) c2 (y a3)
> >> > ...
> >> > x (c a) y is (x c y) a
> >> > "
> >> >
> >> > I hope mentioning old versions of J does not provoke a wild-goose
> chase
> >> ;)
> >> >
> >> > Remarkably, the adverb producing train survivors are sufficient to
> allow
> >> > for complete adverbial programming in the following sense: if the
> desired
> >> > entity (a noun, verb, adverb or conjunction), to be produced, can be
> >> > computed from the adverb's argument then there is a (pure) tacit
> adverb
> >> > able to do so (even compliantly; that is, the hard way, without using
> any
> >> > black magic).
> >> >
> >> > How come? There are several ways to show how this can be done; the J
> >> > sentences further down define a (Curried) adverb hg which can define
> an
> >> > arbitrary adverb t as follows,
> >> >
> >> > t=. v hg
> >> >
> >> > hg acts on a (presumably pure tacit) workhorse verb v and produces the
> >> > required adverb (t). The workhorse verb acts on the atomic
> >> representation
> >> > of t's argument and should produce the atomic representation (or
> similar)
> >> > of the desired entity; finally, hg evokes (`:6) it. Since (at least,
> in
> >> > principle) one can go back and forth between the atomic
> representations
> >> and
> >> > the entities they represent, tacit adverbial programming is reduced to
> >> > tacit verbal programming and the latter is Turing complete [3, 4].
> >> >
> >> > The adverb hg can be defined as follows (no agendas are used, which
> some
> >> > members might find too cryptic), beware of line-wrapping,
> >> >
> >> > 9!:14''
> >> > j805/j64/windows/release/commercial/www.jsoftware.com/2016-
> >> 12-11T08:02:16
> >> >
> >> > o=. @:
> >> > ar=. 5!:1@:<
> >> >
> >> > (a0=. `'') (a1=. (@:[) ((<'&')`) (`:6)) (a2=. (`(<(":0);_)) (`:6))
> >> > ((`'')(((@:[)(&`))(`:6)))((`_)(`:6))
> >> > av=. ((ar'a0')`) (`(ar'a1')) (`(ar'a2') ) (`:6)
> >> > NB. Adverbing a monadic verb (adv)
> >> > assert 1 4 9 -: 1 2 3 *: av
> >> >
> >> > aw=. < o ((0;1;0)&{::) NB. Fetching the atomic representation
> >> > a3=. (@: (aw f.)) ('av'f.)
> >> > a4=. "_
> >> > a5=. `:6
> >> > a6=. ((( ar'a4') ; ] ; ( ar'a3')"_) ('av'f.)) (`:6)
> >> >
> >> > hg=. `((ar'a6')`(ar'a5')) (`:6)
> >> > assert 1 4 9 -: 1 2 3 ((<'*:') ; ]) hg
> >> >
> >> > erase'a0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 ar av aw'
> >> > 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
> >> >
> >> > The adverb hg is tacit and it is fixed. Once it is defined one does
> not
> >> > have to know or remember how it works to use it (that was the main
> point
> >> > for defining it in the first place).
> >> >
> >> > The verb an is convenient to use together with hg for development
> >> (because
> >> > it neutralizes the hg ending adverb evoke (`:6))
> >> >
> >> > an=. <@:((,'0') (,&<) ]) NB. Atomizing words (monadic verb)
> >> >
> >> > For example, assume one wants an adverb t to act on a gerund,
> >> representing
> >> > two verbs (say, u and v) u`v, and produce the verb v@u; thus one
> needs a
> >> > workhorse verb to produce,
> >> >
> >> > v@:u an hg
> >> > ┌──────────┐
> >> > │┌──┬─────┐│
> >> > ││@:│┌─┬─┐││
> >> > ││ ││v│u│││
> >> > ││ │└─┴─┘││
> >> > │└──┴─────┘│
> >> > └──────────┘
> >> >
> >> > acting on,
> >> >
> >> > (u`v) an hg
> >> > ┌─────────┐
> >> > │┌─┬─────┐│
> >> > ││0│┌─┬─┐││
> >> > ││ ││u│v│││
> >> > ││ │└─┴─┘││
> >> > │└─┴─────┘│
> >> > └─────────┘
> >> >
> >> > Therefore, given that,
> >> >
> >> > (u`v) an o (< o ((('@:') ; < o |.)) o (('';1)&{::)) hg
> >> > ┌──────────┐
> >> > │┌──┬─────┐│
> >> > ││@:│┌─┬─┐││
> >> > ││ ││v│u│││
> >> > ││ │└─┴─┘││
> >> > │└──┴─────┘│
> >> > └──────────┘
> >> >
> >> > the adverb t can be defined as,
> >> >
> >> > t=. < o ((('@:') ; < o |.)) o (('';1)&{::) hg
> >> >
> >> > (u`v)t
> >> > v@:u
> >> >
> >> > Let us entertain a more general version of t taking a gerund
> >> representing a
> >> > (variable) number of verbs, the atomic representation of a sample
> >> argument
> >> > u0`u1`u2`u3`u4 (extra parentheses used again for clarity) is,
> >> >
> >> > (u0`u1`u2`u3`u4) an hg
> >> > ┌────────────────────┐
> >> > │┌─┬────────────────┐│
> >> > ││0│┌──┬──┬──┬──┬──┐││
> >> > ││ ││u0│u1│u2│u3│u4│││
> >> > ││ │└──┴──┴──┴──┴──┘││
> >> > │└─┴────────────────┘│
> >> > └────────────────────┘
> >> >
> >> > and the atomic representation of the product u0@:u1@:u2@:u3@:u4 is,
> >> >
> >> > (u0@:u1@:u2@:u3@:u4) an hg
> >> > ┌──────────────────────────────────────────┐
> >> > │┌──┬─────────────────────────────────────┐│
> >> > ││@:│┌────────────────────────────────┬──┐││
> >> > ││ ││┌──┬───────────────────────────┐│u4│││
> >> > ││ │││@:│┌──────────────────────┬──┐││ │││
> >> > ││ │││ ││┌──┬─────────────────┐│u3│││ │││
> >> > ││ │││ │││@:│┌────────────┬──┐││ │││ │││
> >> > ││ │││ │││ ││┌──┬───────┐│u2│││ │││ │││
> >> > ││ │││ │││ │││@:│┌──┬──┐││ │││ │││ │││
> >> > ││ │││ │││ │││ ││u0│u1│││ │││ │││ │││
> >> > ││ │││ │││ │││ │└──┴──┘││ │││ │││ │││
> >> > ││ │││ │││ ││└──┴───────┘│ │││ │││ │││
> >> > ││ │││ │││ │└────────────┴──┘││ │││ │││
> >> > ││ │││ ││└──┴─────────────────┘│ │││ │││
> >> > ││ │││ │└──────────────────────┴──┘││ │││
> >> > ││ ││└──┴───────────────────────────┘│ │││
> >> > ││ │└────────────────────────────────┴──┘││
> >> > │└──┴─────────────────────────────────────┘│
> >> > └──────────────────────────────────────────┘
> >> >
> >> > Now, that seems to be messy but it does not have to be (hint:
> producing
> >> the
> >> > atomic representation is not necessary, as long as the entity can be
> >> evoked
> >> > correctly). A solution of this type is shown near the end of this
> post.
> >> >
> >> > While currently, tacit adverbial programming is complete, tacit
> >> > conjunctional programming is, alas, virtually zip. Nevertheless, let
> us
> >> > have a thought experiment: what would happen if the two conjunction
> >> > producing trains I mentioned above had survived? Would conjunctional
> >> > programming be complete in the same sense in which tacit adverbial
> >> > programming is? The answer is yes.
> >> >
> >> > How come? Because then tacit conjunctional programming could be
> reduced
> >> to
> >> > tacit adverbial programming. Assume, for example, that a conjunction
> >> acts
> >> > on a noun and a verb, say 1 2 3 4 and +/, then
> >> >
> >> > 1 2 3 4 ((an f.hg) (` (an o ((('';1)&{::))hg))(an f.hg)) (+/)
> >> > ┌───────────┬───────┐
> >> > │┌─┬───────┐│┌─┬───┐│
> >> > ││0│1 2 3 4│││/│┌─┐││
> >> > │└─┴───────┘││ ││+│││
> >> > │ ││ │└─┘││
> >> > │ │└─┴───┘│
> >> > └───────────┴───────┘
> >> >
> >> > Therefore, one can replace the verb an by a workhorse verb v acting on
> >> the
> >> > above gerund to produce whatever is desired, for example, if one wants
> >> the
> >> > right-hand verb argument to act on the left-hand side argument we
> could
> >> > simply define the conjunction as follows,
> >> >
> >> > t=. ((an f.hg) (` (|. o ((('';1)&{::))hg)) (an f.hg))
> >> >
> >> > 1 2 3 4 t (+/)
> >> > 10
> >> >
> >> > 'boxed' t <
> >> > ┌─────┐
> >> > │boxed│
> >> > └─────┘
> >> >
> >> > type't'
> >> > ┌───────────┐
> >> > │conjunction│
> >> > └───────────┘
> >> >
> >> > In general, an arbitrary conjunction could be defined as,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > t=. (an f.hg) (` (v o ((('';1)&{::))hg)) (an f.hg)
> >> >
> >> > where v is the workhorse verb. For the common case where the two
> >> arguments
> >> > are verbs,
> >> >
> >> > t=. ` (v o ((('';1)&{::))hg)
> >> >
> >> > would be sufficient.
> >> >
> >> > The 1993 version J is unable to successfully define hg because,
> although
> >> > evoke (`:6) supported gerunds representing lists of verbs, it did not
> >> have
> >> > the extended functionality for hg to be able to work; that was added
> >> > later. I am not sure if the late versions of the interpreters of the
> >> > Golden Age can reproduce all the above.
> >> >
> >> > However, the above is not quite a pure thought experiment. It
> reflects a
> >> > Jx session (Jx is a fork of J that provides some extensions [5]). (Jx
> >> does
> >> > not require the conjunction producing trains to make tacit
> conjunctional
> >> > programming complete because it provides an alternative way to produce
> >> > arbitrary conjunctions; there are there because they are useful and I
> >> > personally consider any tiny performance penalty, due to restoring a
> >> > trident entry in the parse table, as a well-deserved tribute to them.)
> >> >
> >> > Could they find their way back to official interpreters? I do not
> think
> >> > so. Yet, complete conjunctional tacit programming could be provided
> >> without
> >> > having to restore any trident (apart from the fork trident which is
> >> > special). How come? I could give an outline on how this could be
> >> > implemented but this post is already way too long and I wonder how
> many
> >> > members could still be reading it at this point.
> >> >
> >> > However, before I forget, just in case someone wants to see it...
> >> >
> >> > The more general adverb t can be obtained easily: since,
> >> >
> >> > (u0`u1`u2`u3`u4) an o (([ , (<'@:') , ])/o |. o (('';1)&{::))hg
> >> > ┌──┬──┬──┬──┬──┬──┬──┬──┬──┐
> >> > │u4│@:│u3│@:│u2│@:│u1│@:│u0│
> >> > └──┴──┴──┴──┴──┴──┴──┴──┴──┘
> >> >
> >> > then t can be defined as,
> >> >
> >> > t=. ([ , (<'@:') , ])/o |. o (('';1)&{::)hg
> >> >
> >> > u0`u1`u2`u3`u4`u5`u6 t
> >> > u6@:u5@:u4@:u3@:u2@:u1@:u0
> >> >
> >> > *:`(+/)`-`j.`(^ %:)t 1 2 3
> >> > 2.40034j16.7123
> >> >
> >> > PS. My plans for sending a version of this post during the weekend
> were
> >> > crushed because I was too busy (oversleeping, watching dance
> >> performances,
> >> > eating out, swimming, watching boxing, football, etc. :)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > References
> >> >
> >> > [0] [Jprogramming] Tacit Expressions with Explicit J Syntax roger
> stokes
> >> >
> >> > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2017-Septembe
> >> r/048917.html
> >> >
> >> > [1] [Jprogramming] Jx 1.1 Release neitzel
> >> > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2017-October
> >> /049177.html
> >> >
> >> > [2] [Jprogramming] Jx 1.1 Release neitzel
> >> > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2017-October
> >> /049179.html
> >> >
> >> > [3] Universal Turing machine (J)
> >> > https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine#J
> >> >
> >> > [4] Jforum: A Tacit Implementation of a Turing Machine
> >> > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/1999-December/002736.html
> >> >
> >> > [5] [Jprogramming] Jx 1.1 Release Jose Mario Quintana
> >> >
> >> > http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2017-Septembe
> >> r/048957.html
> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forum
> s.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
