In an android reply all the returns are removed. How can I prevent that?Linda.
.Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: 'lindaalvord' via Programming
<programm...@jsoftware.com> Date: 7/3/19 10:12 AM (GMT-05:00) To:
programm...@jsoftware.com Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] a long-form essay Suppose
you start with an idea.5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5. Then model it. 16* (i.3)=/i.3
.16 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 16. Then. f=: 13 :' y* (i.3)=/i.3' f 16. 16 0 0
0 16 0 0 0 16 Then let 13 : make inprovements. f(3 3$1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1)
* ] LindaSent from Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone--------
Original message --------From: Devon McCormick <devon...@gmail.com> Date:
6/30/19 11:40 AM (GMT-05:00) To: J-programming forum
<programm...@jsoftware.com> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] a long-form essay I
routinely "cheat" when building tacit phrases by taking a look at what"13 :"
does: 13 : '(2$x)$(>:x){.y'(2 $ [) $ ] {.~ [: >: [ 3 ((2 $ [) $ ] {.~ [: >:
[) 55 0 00 5 00 0 5The "trick" I see it doing here is flipping "(>:x) {. y " to
" ] {.~ [: >: ",i.e. reversing the arguments of "{." so the monadic use of ">:"
is on theright, avoiding the parenthesization.On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:41 AM
Daniel Eklund <doekl...@gmail.com> wrote:> Bill,>> Thank you.>> Your succinct
definition of & operating on _verbs_ makes it clear.>> Although I was drawn to
ampersand because my hard-coded was bonding a noun,> I could not just use it
with in a different context without understanding> the difference.>> thanks
again>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:06 AM bill lam <bbill....@gmail.com>
wrote:>> > When & works for verbs.> > x u&v y <=> (v x) u (v y)> > for your
case> > 5 {.&] 3 <=> (] 5) {. (] 3)> > 5 {.&[ 3 <=> ([ 5) {. ([ 3)> >> > but
both MONAD [ and ] return its RIGHT argument.> > so the &] or &[ is redundant
and it is the same as> > {.> >> > Something like,> >> > Myverb =: 2&#@:<:@:[
$ {.> > Myverb2 =: 2&#@:<:@:] $ {.~> >> > tl;dr sorry.> >> > Sat, 29 Jun 2019,
Daniel Eklund написал(а):> > > Hey all,> > >> > > I am posting a long email as
I am hoping to understand from the> > collective> > > wisdom here. Apologies
if this was somewhere in the archives but I> have> > > not been able to find
it.> > >> > > I’m trying to understand the subtleties in binding conjunctions
via> tacit> > > forks (or anything tacit). My fumbling has proved mildly> > >
counter-intuitive, and I’m hoping someone here can point me in the> right> > >
direction and/or confirm my conclusions are directionally correct.> > >> > >
Problem: I want to create a verb that allows be to create an identity> > >
matrix filled with a numeral (filled-noun) like:> > >> > > 1 Myverb 4> > >> >
> 1 0 0 0> > >> > > 0 1 0 0> > >> > > 0 0 1 0> > >> > > 0 0 0 1> > >> > > Or> >
>> > > 2 Myverb 4> > >> > > 2 0 0 0> > >> > > 0 2 0 0> > >> > > 0 0 2 0> > >> >
> 0 0 0 2> > >> > > I know there are many ways to do this and the point of the
task is> purely> > > for me to experiment with tacit composition.> > >> > > I
found, quite easily I could do> > >> > > ({.&1) 5> > >> > > 1 0 0 0 0> > >>
> > And therefore> > >> > > 4 4 $ ({.&1) 5> > >> > > 1 0 0 0> > >> > > 0
1 0 0> > >> > > 0 0 1 0> > >> > > 0 0 0 1> > >> > > Which leads me to> > >> > >
(2&#@:<: $ {.&1) 5> > >> > > 1 0 0 0> > >> > > 0 1 0 0> > >> > > 0 0 1 0>
> >> > > 0 0 0 1> > >> > > Using a monadic fork.> > >> > > But now I want to
pass the bound noun to Take ( {. ) so that it’s not> > just> > > hard-coded as
a ‘1’ and thus need a dyadic fork.> > >> > > I stumbled into something that
works but left me with questions> (notice I> > > had to switch sides for
dimension and the filler-noun):> > >> > > Myverb =: 2&#@:<:@:[ $
{.&]> > >> > >> > >> > > 5 Myverb 3 NB. The 5 is the shape of the square,
and> > >> > > NB. the ‘3’ is the filler (the
opposite of> > what> > > I wanted originally)> > >> > > 3 0 0 0> > >> > > 0 3 0
0> > >> > > 0 0 3 0> > >> > > 0 0 0 3> > >> > > The right-verb in the fork
seems to be where I had a problem truly> > > understanding. Given that the
above works, I thought that swapping the> > > SameLeft verb and the SameRight
verb _should_ give me the following> that> > > works> > >> > > Myverb
=: 2&#@:<:@:[ $ {.&]> > >> > > Myverb2 =: 2&#@:<:@:] $ {.&[
NB. Just swapping the ‘]’> and> > > the ‘[‘> > >> > > But it gives me weird
results.> > >> > > 3 Myverb2 5> > >> > > 5 0 0 5> > >> > > 0 0 5 0> > >> > >
0 5 0 0> > >> > > 5 0 0 5> > >> > > I think I was able to figure it out by
realizing that in the phrase> > >> > > {.&[> > >> > > The ‘leftness’ of the
SameLeft verb binds overrides the syntactic> > > suggestion that the input will
be bound to the right, and thus> > >> > > 3 {.&[ 5> > >> > > 5 0 0> > >> >
> Gets reshaped into the matrix I did not want. Given that, I can> finally> >
do:> > >> > > Myverb3 =: 2&#@:<:@:] $ {.~&[> > >> > > _1
Myverb3 5> > >> > > _1 0 0 0> > >> > > 0 _1 0 0> > >> > > 0 0 _1 0> > >>
> > 0 0 0 _1> > >> > > By commuting the right verb in the fork.> > >> > > As
I was concentrating just on the conjunction I got the following> > results,> >
> and think I understand, but would appreciate confirmation, a pat on the> > >
back, or further readings:> > >> > > ({.&[) 5 NB. Experiment (A)> > >> >
> 5> > >> > > ({.&]) 5 NB. Experiment (B)> > >> > > 5> > >> > > 3
({.&]) 5 NB. Experiment (C)> > >> > > 5 0 0> > >> > > 3 ({.&[) 5 NB.
Experiment (D)> > >> > > 5 0 0> > >> > > 5 ({.&) NB. Experiment
(E)> > >> > > {.&5> > >> > > ({.&) 5 NB. Experiment (F)> > >> > >
|syntax error> > >> > > 5 (&{.) NB. Experiment (G)> > >> > > 5&{.>
> >> > > (&{.) 5 NB. Experiment (H)> > >> > > |syntax error> > >> > >> >
> Summary:> > >> > > In experiment (A) the monadic application turns the
SameLeft into Same> > > which feeds its results (via compose) to Head and
resolves to {. 5 and> > > thus 5.> > >> > > In experiment (B) the same thing
occurs except it is SameRight into> Same.> > >> > > In experiment ( C) with a
dyadic invocation, the SameRight’s> ‘rightness’> > > binds the 5 to the right
side, and 3 is fed as the left argument to as> > it> > > should.> > >> > > In
experiment (D) with a dyadic invocation, the SameLeft’s ‘leftness’> > binds> >
> the 3 to the left side of the argument (despite it looking like it is> >
bound> > > on the right -- it is helpful now to understand ampersand as
‘compose’> > and> > > not ‘bind) and the results are the same as experiment (C
).> > >> > > In experiment (E) the conjuctive fragment (no SameRight or
SameLeft)> has> > > become an _adverb_ and thus seeks to the bind to the left
-- and> > produces a> > > verb with a noun bound to the right. NB. I was
really confused when I> > saw> > > that this parsed.> > >> > > In experiment
(F) I proved to myself that the fragment without the> > > SameRight or SameLeft
was just a naked adverb because I got a syntactic> > > error as an adverb
resolves to the left.> > >> > > In experiment (G) I moved the ampersand around
on the fragment and saw> > that> > > now the ampersand was ‘respecting’ the
direction of binding (binding on> > the> > > left instead of the right as in
experiment (E)). This also continued> the> > > evidence that the fragment was
an adverb.> > >> > > Experiment (H) cemented my belief that either fragment
(&{.) or ({.&)> > are> > > induced adverbs.> > >> > > Anyways, thank you for
reading and I hope for some feedback. In all of> > the> > > above, I think
experiment D crystalizes the source of my initial (and> > > long-lasting)
confusion, hopefully now resolved.> > >> > > Thank you> > >> > > Daniel Eklund>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > >
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm> >> >
--> > regards,> > ====================================================> > GPG
key 1024D/4434BAB3 2008-08-24> > gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --armor
--export 4434BAB3> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------> > For
information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm> >>
----------------------------------------------------------------------> For
information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm>-- Devon
McCormick, CFAQuantitative
Consultant----------------------------------------------------------------------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
