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
