I agree. (Well, ... except that modifying words like "easily" are not actually quantifiable and tend to refer to concepts which are highly variable.)
Thanks, -- Raul On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > A tacit version of the adverb t0 can easily be produced via hg. However, > it would be a faithful alternative, meaning it will produce tC0 with a > bonded argument, just as t0 does. If the goal is to do the whole thing > tacitly that would be another matter. It could get messy because tC0 is a > conjunction and as far as I can see one cannot produce tacit conjunctions, > yet ... > > However, remember, the claim was: if the product can be computed from an > adverb's argument it can be produced via v hg for some v. (By the way, > there is nothing that could stop me from doing the whole thing tacit in Jx; > that is, apart from laziness). > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sure, here's one example: >> >> s0=: 1 :'m"_^:((<''0:'')=])"0 L:1' >> s1=: 1 :'m"_^:((<''1:'')=])"0 L:1' >> template=: 0:&.>/\.&.(,&1:)&.|.&.(<"_1) a0 >> >> t0=:1 :0 >> tC0 m >> ) >> >> tC0=:2 :0 >> : >> ((<(0;1;0){::(<x)&,`'') s1 ({.u`'') s0 n)`:6 y >> ) >> >> (i.2 2) +/ template t0 i.3 >> 0 1 >> 2 3 >> >> 1 2 >> 3 4 >> >> 3 4 >> 5 6 >> >> Hopefully this shows possibilities for other examples. In particular: >> I could handle the 1: substitution differently. I do not like that t0 >> is doing the boxing of that argument (since that operation is specific >> to this particular template), but I also do not like requiring that >> value to be boxed for the derived adverb. >> >> Unfortunately, we do not have anything like a left& or right& - I >> could, of course write one, but I am not sure that that extra >> complexity would help illustrate the concept I am trying to show here. >> >> So... hopefully this quick sketch conveys the basic idea? >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- >> Raul >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Jose Mario Quintana >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > " >> > Consider, for example, using the 0: and 1: verbs as placeholders in a >> > gerund and substituting in a verb for the 0: argument and a boxed copy >> > of a noun for the 1: argument in this gerund template: >> > 0:&.>/\.&.(,&1:)&.|.&.(<"_1) a0 >> > >> > hg gives us a way of defining these transformations as verbs, but we >> > still need to define those verbs... >> > " >> > I am not quite sure what you mean by the above. Can you show some >> examples >> > of the adverb, say t0, in action? Can you show its explicit definition? >> > >> > By the way, I am not arguing that hg is always easy to use; personally, I >> > produce adverbs by other noncompliant means. I have been using hg mostly >> > for producing examples for the forum. ;) >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Jose Mario Quintana >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > RM> That said, describing the purpose of hg (and why one would want to >> >> use >> >> > RM> hg instead of av) is eluding me at the moment. Maybe when I wake >> up >> >> > RM> some more I would be better prepared to address this. >> >> > >> >> > The hg specification states that the argument for the workhorse verb >> is >> >> the >> >> > atomic representation (ar) of hg's argument (which can be a verb or a >> >> noun). >> >> >> >> (rest of message trimmed, so I can focus on this issue.) >> >> >> >> Yes, this is true. And the result of that verb is expected to be >> >> (roughly speaking) an atomic representation of the result of the hg >> >> derived adverb. >> >> >> >> But ... thinking this through... for this to be useful we should also >> >> have some mechanism for replacing-at-depth, and we also need to be >> >> able to chain in other operations. >> >> >> >> Consider, for example, using the 0: and 1: verbs as placeholders in a >> >> gerund and substituting in a verb for the 0: argument and a boxed copy >> >> of a noun for the 1: argument in this gerund template: >> >> 0:&.>/\.&.(,&1:)&.|.&.(<"_1) a0 >> >> >> >> hg gives us a way of defining these transformations as verbs, but we >> >> still need to define those verbs... >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Raul >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> 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
