> because the long sequence of ARs is not a valid AR. Certainly, the purpose of posing those questions was to find out where the permissiveness breaking point would be. This is what, I think, I have learned regarding the tie, train, and (left) agenda arguments in J (as described or might be described by the official documentation): lists of ARs of verbs are kosher, lists of ARs might become kosher; anything else is almost surely not kosher. Therefore, these are not kosher,
(<'"') ┌─┐ │"│ └─┘ (<'"') (`:6) " (<'"') (@.0) " but these might become kosher, (<,'"') ┌─┐ │"│ └─┘ (<,'"') (`:6) " (<,'"') (@.0) " these are not kosher, ((<'"') ,~ (<;:'u@:v-v@:u')) ┌─────────────────┬─┐ │┌─┬──┬─┬─┬─┬──┬─┐│"│ ││u│@:│v│-│v│@:│u││ │ │└─┴──┴─┴─┴─┴──┴─┘│ │ └─────────────────┴─┘ ((<'"') ,~ (<;:'u@:v-v@:u')) (`:6) (u@:v - v@:u)" ((<'"') ,~ (<;:'u@:v-v@:u')) (@.0) u@:v - v@:u but these might become kosher, (<(<,'4'),<(<(<,'3'),<(<(<'@:'),<<;._1 ' u v'),(<,'-'),<(<'@:'),<<;._1 ' v u'),<,'"') ┌─────────────────────────────────────┐ │┌─┬─────────────────────────────────┐│ ││4│┌─────────────────────────────┬─┐││ ││ ││┌─┬─────────────────────────┐│"│││ ││ │││3│┌──────────┬─┬──────────┐││ │││ ││ │││ ││┌──┬─────┐│-│┌──┬─────┐│││ │││ ││ │││ │││@:│┌─┬─┐││ ││@:│┌─┬─┐││││ │││ ││ │││ │││ ││u│v│││ ││ ││v│u│││││ │││ ││ │││ │││ │└─┴─┘││ ││ │└─┴─┘││││ │││ ││ │││ ││└──┴─────┘│ │└──┴─────┘│││ │││ ││ │││ │└──────────┴─┴──────────┘││ │││ ││ ││└─┴─────────────────────────┘│ │││ ││ │└─────────────────────────────┴─┘││ │└─┴─────────────────────────────────┘│ └─────────────────────────────────────┘ (<(<,'4'),<(<(<,'3'),<(<(<'@:'),<<;._1 ' u v'),(<,'-'),<(<'@:'),<<;._1 ' v u'),<,'"')(`:6) (u@:v - v@:u)" (<(<,'4'),<(<(<,'3'),<(<(<'@:'),<<;._1 ' u v'),(<,'-'),<(<'@:'),<<;._1 ' v u'),<,'"')(@.0) (u@:v - v@:u)" There would tedious extra work involved when one wants to be kosher but it is doable. So far so good? On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:58 PM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would object to > > ((<'"') ,~ (<;:'u@:v-v@:u')) (`:6) > > because the long sequence of ARs is not a valid AR. This seems like an > interpreter artifact. > > The result of 5!:2 is not germane here, as it is not an AR. Your > examples using it also seem to be interpreter artifacts to me. > > Henry Rich > > On 3/11/2020 8:22 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > >> Of course the fact that m@.n allows certain forms does not imply that > >> m@.v would support similar forms. > > Of course. > > > >> I don't see anything to object to here. > > Great! This means tacit adverbs functioning as parameterized macros are, > > or might be eventually, legitimized. > >> There are gerunds and adverbs, > >> producing trains that evaluate properly. > > Right, the trains evaluate properly; even though the list (;:'@:-"') > > includes ARs of conjunctions (it is not my intention at all to argue with a > > /mufti/ of J, I am just accentuating). > > > >> By The Wise I mean the /ulama/ of J (neminem nominabo, genus hominum > >> significasse contentus) You know who you are. > > Train (`:6) can also evaluate properly forms associated with the > > corresponding agenda (m@.n) evaluation, mutatis mutandis; exempli gratia, > > > > ((<'"') ,~ (<;:'u@:v-v@:u')) > > ┌─────────────────┬─┐ > > │┌─┬──┬─┬─┬─┬──┬─┐│"│ > > ││u│@:│v│-│v│@:│u││ │ > > │└─┴──┴─┴─┴─┴──┴─┘│ │ > > └─────────────────┴─┘ > > > > ((<'"') ,~ (<;:'u@:v-v@:u')) (`:6) > > (u@:v - v@:u)" > > > > Do the /ulama/ of J (et alli) disapprove? > > > > By the way, some boxed representations belong to this class of forms, > > > > t=. (u@:v - v@:u)" > > > > (5!:2<'t') > > ┌─────────────────────┬─┐ > > │┌────────┬─┬────────┐│"│ > > ││┌─┬──┬─┐│-│┌─┬──┬─┐││ │ > > │││u│@:│v││ ││v│@:│u│││ │ > > ││└─┴──┴─┘│ │└─┴──┴─┘││ │ > > │└────────┴─┴────────┘│ │ > > └─────────────────────┴─┘ > > (5!:2<'t') (`:6) > > (u@:v - v@:u)" > > > > but not all of them, > > > > t=. "1 > > > > (5!:2<'t') > > ┌─┬─┐ > > │"│1│ > > └─┴─┘ > > > > (5!:2<'t') (`:6) > > |domain error > > | (5!:2<'t') (`:6) > > > > The issue here is the missing (in the evaluation sense) AR of 1, > > > > (<,'"'),<<(,'0');1 > > ┌─┬───────┐ > > │"│┌─────┐│ > > │ ││┌─┬─┐││ > > │ │││0│1│││ > > │ ││└─┴─┘││ > > │ │└─────┘│ > > └─┴───────┘ > > ((<,'"'),<<(,'0');1) (`:6) > > "1 > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:49 PM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't see anything to object to here. There are gerunds and adverbs, > >> producing trains that evaluate properly. > >> > >> > >> By The Wise I mean the /ulama/ of J (neminem nominabo, genus hominum > >> significasse contentus) You know who you are. > >> > >> Henry Rich > >> > >> On 3/10/2020 11:34 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > >>>> I don't think it's illegal. The spec (Ye Dic, here) is incomplete. It > >>> That is good to know. > >>> > >>>> I don't see anything bad coming from executing a train containing > >>>> non-verbs; so I would vote to expand the spec to include all trains. > >>> I do not see anything bag coming either, on the contrary. > >>> > >>>> There would need to be discussion among The Wise before any such > > change. > >>> May I offer some food for thought to The Wise? > >>> > >>> I would expect that whatever is decided regarding the legality in J > > about > >>> the train's (`:6) arguments would, or should, affect its capable > > relative, > >>> agenda (@.), specifically the m@.n form; for instance, do The Wise, or > > you, > >>> in particular, think that the following sentences, supported by j901, > > are > >>> legal or illegal in J? > >>> > >>> a=. (`(;:'@:-"'))(@.(4 ;~ (<0 2 1 3 1 2 0))) > >>> > >>> u`v a > >>> (u@:v - v@:u)" > >>> > >>> _1 *:`(+/) a i. 2 3 4 > >>> 64 118 184 262 > >>> 1504 1702 1912 2134 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:09 AM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >>>> I don't think it's illegal. The spec (Ye Dic, here) is incomplete. It > >>>> says what will be done if there is a verb train but is silent about > >>>> other trains. > >>>> > >>>> What the implementation does is accept any train and evaluate it. > >>>> Thinking about it I don't see anything else you could do with a train; > > & > >>>> I don't see anything bad coming from executing a train containing > >>>> non-verbs; so I would vote to expand the spec to include all trains. > >>>> > >>>> There would need to be discussion among The Wise before any such > > change. > >>>> Henry Rich > >>>> > >>>> On 3/9/2020 11:36 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: > >>>>> Henry wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Ye Dic mentions only verb trains under `: . > >>>>> Therefore, the sentence ((<,'"') ` (an 1) (`:6)) is illegal in J > >>> because "1 > >>>>> is not a train of verbs (even if it is supported by j). Correct? > > (This > >>> is > >>>>> not a rhetorical question.) > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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 > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > > > -- > 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
