> What Ken meant by "resolve" is not clear to me. It does not seem to be very relevant after all. At any rate, what was important to me is that for a certain type of verbs produced by a form (n a), all the information in (n) stayed latent and could be accessed later on by (a) at a convenient time. (The exact way it manages to work is still somewhat mysterious to me ; but it works).
Thanks On Friday, December 7, 2018, Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: > - * ^ does produce a single word (a verb) that executes as the fork. > > / /. produces a single word that is executed on a u (given later) to > produce a verb. Does that make it a train? Beats me. Like I said, > exegesis of the Scripture is not my interest. > > What Ken meant by "resolve" is not clear to me. > > Henry Rich > > > On 12/7/2018 7:44 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > >> Thanks for the explanation. The questions I asked were not rhetorical; I >> had a view but I was not certain and I am trying to understand what >> happens. >> >> If I understand correctly then, in contrast, - * ^ does not produce a verb >> but it remains a train. >> >> The display of a verb is a description of the verb, not the verb itself. >>> >> I know, but without looking at the source the best I can do is to look at >> the atomic representations and see. Now, I know I should look for the >> codes for trains to find out (I suppose). >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:01 PM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Yes, it does. It is executed on parser line 3. It produces an >>> anonymous verb that will amend an array. >>> >>> But you asked to DISPLAY the anonymous verb. How do you display the >>> verb that will amend an array? The best the JE can do is to display the >>> J code that describes that effect. >>> >>> The display of a verb is a description of the verb, not the verb itself. >>> >>> Henry Rich >>> >>> On 12/7/2018 6:55 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: >>> >>>> The F. Trains begins, >>>> >>>> "An isolated sequence, such as (+ */) , which the “normal” parsing rules >>>> >>> do >>> >>>> not resolve" and the form, >>>> >>>> 5} >>>> 5} >>>> >>>> does not resolve. Does it? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 6:39 PM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> My reading is that (N A) is not a train because it is executed when it >>>>> is encountered and produces a single word as its value. (A A) or (N C) >>>>> are not fully executed until something else comes along. >>>>> >>>>> I find wrangling over what the Dictionary means unproductive. >>>>> >>>>> Henry Rich >>>>> >>>>> On 12/7/2018 6:30 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Right, but this form is not mentioned in, >>>>>> >>>>>> F. Trains >>>>>> file:///G:/program%20files/j/addons/docs/help/dictionary/di >>>>>> ctf.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it? (My apologies, I have not seen NuVoc in detail.) >>>>>> >>>>>> I should mention that in that my Y combinator was, by design, >>>>>> producing >>>>>> anonymous recursive verbs as (n a) trains. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 6:22 PM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> >>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>> >>>> (Noun Adverb) is certainly allowed, as in m} . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Henry Rich >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/7/2018 6:20 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As far as I can see the verb, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (<(<,':'),<(<(,'0');1),<(,'0');1 0$'u') (1 : 'u u`:6`:6 y') >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is, or resembles, a train of the form (noun adverb) but this kind of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> train >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is not documented. Is it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (The verbs produced by my version of the Y combinator were >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
