t0=. ((;:'tC0') , ])hg (i.2 2) +/ template t0 i.3 0 1 2 3
1 2 3 4 3 4 5 6 On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/forum > s.htm > >> >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > >> > 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
