The issue, to me, is not reflected in your example (wherein that context
makes sense to replace the AR). Consider instead the following adverb,
a2=. (`(<(":0);_)) (`:6)
a2
(`_)(`:6)
(5!:5)<'a2'
(`_)(`:6)
The issue, in this context, is that,
b2=. (`_)(`:6) NB. defined using the LR of a2
(5!:1)<'b2'
┌──────────────────────────────────┐
│┌─┬──────────────────────────────┐│
││4│┌─────────────┬──────────────┐││
││ ││┌─┬─────────┐│┌─┬──────────┐│││
││ │││4│┌─┬─────┐│││4│┌──┬─────┐││││
││ │││ ││`│┌─┬─┐││││ ││`:│┌─┬─┐│││││
││ │││ ││ ││0│_│││││ ││ ││0│6││││││
││ │││ ││ │└─┴─┘││││ ││ │└─┴─┘│││││
││ │││ │└─┴─────┘│││ │└──┴─────┘││││
││ ││└─┴─────────┘│└─┴──────────┘│││
││ │└─────────────┴──────────────┘││
│└─┴──────────────────────────────┘│
└──────────────────────────────────┘
is not the same adverb as a2
(5!:1)<'a2'
┌────────────────────────────────────────┐
│┌─┬────────────────────────────────────┐│
││4│┌───────────────────┬──────────────┐││
││ ││┌─┬───────────────┐│┌─┬──────────┐│││
││ │││4│┌─┬───────────┐│││4│┌──┬─────┐││││
││ │││ ││`│┌─┬───────┐││││ ││`:│┌─┬─┐│││││
││ │││ ││ ││0│┌─────┐│││││ ││ ││0│6││││││
││ │││ ││ ││ ││┌─┬─┐││││││ ││ │└─┴─┘│││││
││ │││ ││ ││ │││0│_│││││││ │└──┴─────┘││││
││ │││ ││ ││ ││└─┴─┘│││││└─┴──────────┘│││
││ │││ ││ ││ │└─────┘││││ │││
││ │││ ││ │└─┴───────┘│││ │││
││ │││ │└─┴───────────┘││ │││
││ ││└─┴───────────────┘│ │││
││ │└───────────────────┴──────────────┘││
│└─┴────────────────────────────────────┘│
└────────────────────────────────────────┘
In other words, the LR of a2 is faulty.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:03 PM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am trying to follow this to see if there is a bug that needs fixing.
> That has not been made clear to me. I observe
>
>
> (f@g)`h`]
> +---------+-+-+
> |+-+-----+|h|]|
> ||@|+-+-+|| | |
> || ||f|g||| | |
> || |+-+-+|| | |
> |+-+-----+| | |
> +---------+-+-+
> (f@g)`h`] `: 6
> +-------+-+-+
> |+-+-+-+|h|]|
> ||f|@|g|| | |
> |+-+-+-+| | |
> +-------+-+-+
> f@g h ]
>
> In the linear-rep display, the AR in the first box has been replaced
> with a value that has the same AR, to make the display easier to read.
>
> (<,'0';3)`h`]
> +-----+-+-+
> |+-+-+|h|]|
> ||0|3|| | |
> |+-+-+| | |
> +-----+-+-+
> (<,'0';3)`h`] `: 6
> +-+-+-+
> |3|h|]|
> +-+-+-+
> 3 h ]
>
> The same thing has been done here, but you don't like that. Can you
> give a clear statement of what you would like changed, for example
> "don't replace the AR of a noun with the display value - write the AR in
> full". As stated that would not be a good idea, because
>
> a =. 3 h ]
> 5!:1 <'a'
> +---------------+
> |+-+-----------+|
> ||3|+-----+-+-+||
> || ||+-+-+|h|]|||
> || |||0|3|| | |||
> || ||+-+-+| | |||
> || |+-----+-+-+||
> |+-+-----------+|
> +---------------+
> a
> 3 h ]
>
> Replacing the noun's AR is good in this case. What statement would you
> endorse?
>
> Henry Rich
>
>
> On 3/2/2020 6:46 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
> > > Any definition of gerunds limited to atomic representations of verbs
> is
> > an oversimplification (for natural language gramatical analogy). It
> should
> > be atomic representations without limitations. @. and `:6 can produce
> nouns
> > and modifiers from their atomic representations.
> >
> > I fully agree with you (except that, to me, the name gerund would be
> > irrelevant as long as, for example, (`:6) would continue to make sense of
> > those forms); I would go even further. I would include *anything* that
> > (`:6) can take and make sense of it (at least up to J807), these include
> > forms that are not necessarily confined to lists of atomic
> representations;
> > I included a couple in my first post, to wit,
> >
> > (9!:3) 5 2 NB. Box (display) and linear representations...
> >
> > (<(<<(,'0');3),(<,'+'),<<(,'0');5),(<,'*'),<<(,'0');2 NB. (3 + 5) *
> 2
> > ┌───────────────────┬─┬───────┐
> > │┌───────┬─┬───────┐│*│┌─────┐│
> > ││┌─────┐│+│┌─────┐││ ││┌─┬─┐││
> > │││┌─┬─┐││ ││┌─┬─┐│││ │││0│2│││
> > ││││0│3│││ │││0│5││││ ││└─┴─┘││
> > │││└─┴─┘││ ││└─┴─┘│││ │└─────┘│
> > ││└─────┘│ │└─────┘││ │ │
> > │└───────┴─┴───────┘│ │ │
> > └───────────────────┴─┴───────┘
> >
> > ((<(<<(,'0');3),(<,'+'),<<(,'0');5),(<,'*'),<<(,'0');2) (`:6)
> > 16
> >
> > and
> >
> > (<(<,'"'),<<(,'0');1),<(<'@:'),<;:'>@:{' NB. ("1)(@:(>@:{))
> > ┌───────────┬─────────────┐
> > │┌─┬───────┐│┌──┬────────┐│
> > ││"│┌─────┐│││@:│┌─┬──┬─┐││
> > ││ ││┌─┬─┐││││ ││>│@:│{│││
> > ││ │││0│1│││││ │└─┴──┴─┘││
> > ││ ││└─┴─┘│││└──┴────────┘│
> > ││ │└─────┘││ │
> > │└─┴───────┘│ │
> > └───────────┴─────────────┘
> > ((<(<,'"'),<<(,'0');1),<(<'@:'),<;:'>@:{') (`:6)
> > ("1)(@:(>@:{))
> > ┌─────┬─────────────┐
> > │┌─┬─┐│┌──┬────────┐│
> > ││"│1│││@:│┌─┬──┬─┐││
> > │└─┴─┘││ ││>│@:│{│││
> > │ ││ │└─┴──┴─┘││
> > │ │└──┴────────┘│
> > └─────┴─────────────┘
> >
> >> The nuvoc page for ` includes the "gramatically" qualifier which makes
> it
> > an acceptable "simplification explainer"
> >
> > I hope you are correct. However, it seems to me that both, the
> Dictionary
> > and NuVoc, imply that what is not explicitly allowed is forbidden. If
> so,
> > NuVoc's entry for evoke (`:) reads "If m is a gerund, m`:n creates a
> verb
> > based on m." which would imply that, regardless of the implementation,
> > producing anything else, apart from verbs, would be considered illegal (I
> > would be glad to be corrected by the powers that be).
> >
> >> Your an definition differs from my ar definition in that ar accepts
> verbs.
> > You are right, of course; but, my (mildly tested) claim was that my
> adverb
> > ar=. an f.hg, not the verb an, is a tacit counterpart of your explicit
> > adverb ar =: 1 : '5!:1 <''u''' and my adverb ar also accepts verbs (in
> > addition to nouns),
> >
> > <^:(L. < *@#) ar
> > ┌─────────────────────────────┐
> > │┌──┬────────────────────────┐│
> > ││^:│┌─┬────────────────────┐││
> > ││ ││<│┌─┬────────────────┐│││
> > ││ ││ ││3│┌──┬─┬─────────┐││││
> > ││ ││ ││ ││L.│<│┌─┬─────┐│││││
> > ││ ││ ││ ││ │ ││@│┌─┬─┐││││││
> > ││ ││ ││ ││ │ ││ ││*│#│││││││
> > ││ ││ ││ ││ │ ││ │└─┴─┘││││││
> > ││ ││ ││ ││ │ │└─┴─────┘│││││
> > ││ ││ ││ │└──┴─┴─────────┘││││
> > ││ ││ │└─┴────────────────┘│││
> > ││ │└─┴────────────────────┘││
> > │└──┴────────────────────────┘│
> > └─────────────────────────────┘
> >
> >> I also use aar to handle modifiers (and names distinguished from
> strings)
> > It turns out that my ar (and yours as well) can deal with any word, not
> > just nouns and verbs, if one can manage to pass the word as an argument.
> > So, if I had to find the atomic representations of words defined in
> > literals using an official J interpreter, I would use J807 or earlier and
> > go the wicked tacit way using my J Tacit Toolkit...
> >
> > l2a=. (Ver'ar') o train o as f. NB. literal to atomic (verb)
> >
> > l2a 'i.2 3'
> > ┌─────────┐
> > │┌─┬─────┐│
> > ││0│0 1 2││
> > ││ │3 4 5││
> > │└─┴─────┘│
> > └─────────┘
> > l2a '<^:(L. < *@#)'
> > ┌─────────────────────────────┐
> > │┌──┬────────────────────────┐│
> > ││^:│┌─┬────────────────────┐││
> > ││ ││<│┌─┬────────────────┐│││
> > ││ ││ ││3│┌──┬─┬─────────┐││││
> > ││ ││ ││ ││L.│<│┌─┬─────┐│││││
> > ││ ││ ││ ││ │ ││@│┌─┬─┐││││││
> > ││ ││ ││ ││ │ ││ ││*│#│││││││
> > ││ ││ ││ ││ │ ││ │└─┴─┘││││││
> > ││ ││ ││ ││ │ │└─┴─────┘│││││
> > ││ ││ ││ │└──┴─┴─────────┘││││
> > ││ ││ │└─┴────────────────┘│││
> > ││ │└─┴────────────────────┘││
> > │└──┴────────────────────────┘│
> > └─────────────────────────────┘
> > l2a '("1)(@:(>@:{))'
> > ┌───────────────────────────────────────┐
> > │┌─┬───────────────────────────────────┐│
> > ││4│┌─────────────┬───────────────────┐││
> > ││ ││┌─┬─────────┐│┌─┬───────────────┐│││
> > ││ │││4│┌─┬─────┐│││4│┌──┬──────────┐││││
> > ││ │││ ││"│┌─┬─┐││││ ││@:│┌──┬─────┐│││││
> > ││ │││ ││ ││0│1│││││ ││ ││@:│┌─┬─┐││││││
> > ││ │││ ││ │└─┴─┘││││ ││ ││ ││>│{│││││││
> > ││ │││ │└─┴─────┘│││ ││ ││ │└─┴─┘││││││
> > ││ ││└─┴─────────┘││ ││ │└──┴─────┘│││││
> > ││ ││ ││ │└──┴──────────┘││││
> > ││ ││ │└─┴───────────────┘│││
> > ││ │└─────────────┴───────────────────┘││
> > │└─┴───────────────────────────────────┘│
> > └───────────────────────────────────────┘
> > l2a '''bind'' f.'
> > ┌───────────────────────┐
> > │┌─┬───────────────────┐│
> > ││:│┌─────┬───────────┐││
> > ││ ││┌─┬─┐│┌─┬───────┐│││
> > ││ │││0│2│││0│x@(y"_)││││
> > ││ ││└─┴─┘│└─┴───────┘│││
> > ││ │└─────┴───────────┘││
> > │└─┴───────────────────┘│
> > └───────────────────────┘
> > UNO=. 1
> > l2a '''UNO'' f.'
> > ┌─────┐
> > │┌─┬─┐│
> > ││0│1││
> > │└─┴─┘│
> > └─────┘
> >
> > If I had to use J901 then, at least for now, I would use,
> >
> > l2a=. verb : '(5!:1)<''y'' [ ".''y=. '' , y'
> >
> > and live with potential side effects,
> >
> > UNO=. 1
> > l2a '''UNO''f.'
> > ┌─────┐
> > │┌─┬─┐│
> > ││0│1││
> > │└─┴─┘│
> > └─────┘
> > y=. 1
> > l2a '''y''f.'
> > ┌─────────┐
> > │┌─┬─────┐│
> > ││0│'y'f.││
> > │└─┴─────┘│
> > └─────────┘
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 12:03 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <
> > programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
> >> Any definition of gerunds limited to atomic representations of verbs is
> > an oversimplification (for natural language gramatical analogy). It
> should
> > be atomic representations without limitations. @. and `:6 can produce
> nouns
> > and modifiers from their atomic representations. The nuvoc page for `
> > includes the "gramatically" qualifier which makes it an acceptable
> > "simplification explainer"
> >> In example 2 of that page,
> >>
> >> "NB. x is 3 gerunds; execute one on y, depending on the sign of y"
> >>
> >> mistakenly uses gerunds instead of "atomic representations"
> >>
> >> I've always used gerund to mean a list of atomic representations. One
> > basis to think so: +`'' produces a list of one item
> >> Your an definition differs from my ar definition in that ar accepts
> verbs.
> >>
> >> I also use aar to handle modifiers (and names distinguished from
> strings)
> >>
> >> aar =: 1 : 'if. isNoun ''u'' do. q =. m eval else. q =. u end. 5!:1 <
> > ''q'''
> >> eval =: 1 : 'if. 2 ~: 3!:0 m do. m else. a: 1 : m end.'
> >>
> >> isNoun =: (0 = 4!:0 ::0:)@:<
> >>
> >>
> >> + aar
> >>
> >> ┌─┐
> >>
> >> │+│
> >>
> >> └─┘
> >>
> >> three =: 3
> >>
> >> 'three' ar
> >>
> >> ┌─────────┐
> >>
> >> │┌─┬─────┐│
> >>
> >> ││0│three││
> >>
> >> │└─┴─────┘│
> >>
> >> └─────────┘
> >>
> >> 'three' aar
> >>
> >> ┌─────┐
> >>
> >> │┌─┬─┐│
> >>
> >> ││0│3││
> >>
> >> │└─┴─┘│
> >>
> >> └─────┘
> >>
> >>
> >> '/\' aar
> >>
> >> ┌─┐
> >>
> >> │/│
> >>
> >> └─┘
> >>
> >> '/\' aar
> >>
> >> ┌─────────┐
> >>
> >> │┌─┬─────┐│
> >>
> >> ││4│┌─┬─┐││
> >>
> >> ││ ││/│\│││
> >>
> >> ││ │└─┴─┘││
> >>
> >> │└─┴─────┘│
> >>
> >> └─────────┘
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sunday, March 1, 2020, 09:07:05 a.m. EST, Jose Mario Quintana <
> > jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In my previous post I wrote,
> >>
> >> "First I thought that only atomic representations of trains of verbs
> were
> >> allowed"
> >>
> >> but I should have written instead,
> >>
> >> "First I thought that only nouns representing trains of verbs under de
> >> adverb train (`:6) were allowed"
> >>
> >> that is, for instance, ((u`v)`w) where u,v, and w are verbs is valid.
> >>
> >> (I should stop writing posts to the forum and watching fights
> >> simultaneously.)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 12:35 AM Jose Mario Quintana <
> >> jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> < Though that lr bug caused the problems with f. that we both have
> noted
> >> in the past.
> >>> Right, I remember; however, I think the issue reverts back to what,
> >> officially, a gerund is, or more generally what are admissible arguments
> > to
> >> train (`:6), agenda (@.), and tie (`) (and their products) because if an
> >> entity is not valid a faulty linear representation of it might not be
> >> regarded as a bug.
> >>> On the one hand, the dictionary was ambiguous (and permissive in my
> > mind)
> >> on this subject but my understanding is that NuVoc is nowadays the
> > official
> >> documentation; thus, a gerund is "the atomic representation of a verb,
> or
> > a
> >> list thereof" (which among other things implies that your isgerund verb
> >> might need to be revised or renamed). After reading the tie (`) entry
> is
> >> not entirely clear to me what are valid values for n and m. First I
> >> thought that only atomic representations of trains of verbs were
> allowed,
> >> but apparently '' is also considered valid in some instances. Perhaps,
> > for
> >> example, the use of (3 ar) in,
> >>> ((3 ar)`*`])
> >>> ┌─────┬─┬─┐
> >>> │┌─┬─┐│*│]│
> >>> ││0│3││ │ │
> >>> │└─┴─┘│ │ │
> >>> └─────┴─┴─┘
> >>>
> >>> ((3 ar)`*`]) (`:6)
> >>> 3 * ]
> >>>
> >>> is invalid because (3 ar) is not the atomic representation of a verb.
> > In
> >> addition,
> >>> + ((3 ar)`) (`(5 ar))
> >>> ┌─────┬─┬─────┐
> >>> │┌─┬─┐│+│┌─┬─┐│
> >>> ││0│3││ ││0│5││
> >>> │└─┴─┘│ │└─┴─┘│
> >>> └─────┴─┴─────┘
> >>>
> >>> seems to be an invalid use of ties even if only because
> >>> + ((3 ar)`) (`(5 ar)) (`:6)
> >>> 8
> >>>
> >>> is a noun rather than a verb.
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand, there has been an effort in the past to correct
> >> similar faulty linear representations that have been pestering some of
> us
> >> for many years. Maybe they are invalid but tolerated; several years
> ago I
> >> wrote the following tacit double adverb (hg) which allows one to
> produce a
> >> wide class of tacit adverbs by reducing the task of tacit adverbial
> >> programming to tacit verbal programming. When I wrote hg Dan and I
> >> thoutght it was kosher but nowadays apparently it is not,
> >> o=. @:
> >>> c=."_
> >>> ar=. 5!:1@:<
> >>> d=. (a0=. `'') (a1=. (@:[) ((<'&')`) (`:6)) (a2=. (`(<(":0);_)) (`: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
> >>> d=. (a3=. (@: (aw f.)) ('av'f.)) (a4=. "_) (a5=. `:6)
> >>> a6=. ((( ar'a4') ; ] ; ( ar'a3')"_) ('av'f.)) (`:6)
> >>>
> >>> NB. hg...
> >>> hg=. `((ar'a6')`(ar'a5')) (`:6)
> >>> assert (*: 1 2 3) -: 1 2 3 ((<'*:') ; ] )
> >> hg
> >>> assert (*/ 1 2 3) -: * (< , ((<'/')c))
> >> hg 1 2 3
> >>> assert ((*: - +/\)1 2 3) -: (*:`(+/\)) (0&{ , (<'-') ,
> >> 1&{)@:(('';1)&{::) hg 1 2 3
> >>> erase'a0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 av aw d'
> >>>
> >>> A simple application is to produce a tacit version of your ar adverb
> >> (mildly tested),
> >>> an=. <@:((,'0') ,&:< ])f. NB. Atomizing words (monadic verb)
> >>> ar=. an f.hg
> >>>
> >>> A shorter tacit version of ar exists but the point is that hg can
> > produce
> >> a tacit version of the adverb ar as well as lots of other tacit adverbs.
> >> The linear representations of both adverbs (hg and ar) are faulty; that
> > is,
> >> running on J807, I have not tried with J901.
> >>> P.S. I merely have a mild academic interest on this matter since I
> >> neither use J901 nor J807 for any important work.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:04 PM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <
> >> programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
> >>>> Henry reported (I think/thought) fixing this display (lr) bug within
> >> the j9 cycle.
> >>>> Though that lr bug caused the problems with f. that we both have noted
> >> in the past.
> >>>> There are 2 separate display bugs with "partial gerunds" (bound adverb
> >> with `)
> >>>> ((<(,'0');3)`) NB. not equivalent to displayed result
> >>>>
> >>>> <(,'0');3`
> >>>>
> >>>> Any other adverb "trained" with partial gerund creates a more obvious
> >> distortion
> >>>> /((<(,'0');3)`)
> >>>>
> >>>> /(3`)
> >>>>
> >>>> though it still works (internally it is not messed up as display)
> >>>>
> >>>> +(/((<(,'0');3)`))
> >>>>
> >>>> ┌─────┬───────┐
> >>>>
> >>>> │┌─┬─┐│┌─┬───┐│
> >>>>
> >>>> ││0│3│││/│┌─┐││
> >>>>
> >>>> │└─┴─┘││ ││+│││
> >>>>
> >>>> │ ││ │└─┘││
> >>>>
> >>>> │ │└─┴───┘│
> >>>>
> >>>> └─────┴───────┘
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
