Currently `:6 has a high tolerance for each, but there is a distinction between conjunctions and "compositions" in your example
( + ar , < +ar, -ar) `:6 + (+ -) ('@' aar , < +ar, -ar)`:6 @(+ -) (< '@' aar , < +ar, -ar)`:6 +@- (< '@' aar , < +ar, -ar) -: +@- ar 1 You are suggesting that a list of ARs be construed as a valid AR. I agree with the goal. I worry that the encoding is not reversible. +---------+ |+-+-----+| ||f|+-+-+|| || ||g|h||| || |+-+-+|| |+-+-----+| +---------+ Is this (f (g h)) (as it must be if f is a verb) or (g f h) (if f is a conjunction)? I don't like having to parse the ARs to figure out how to interpret them. Henry Rich On 3/16/2020 10:18 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: >> I would say that (<,'"') is kosher and (<'"') not, already, based on >> this interpretation of what Ye Dic meant. The implementation is > I am adopting your suggestion henceforth. > >> My vote would be that 'train' refers to any sequence of ARs and that >> when `:6 said 'train of individual verbs' it meant to say 'the (possibly >> derived) words created by executing the train of the (possibly derived) >> words represented by each AR'. > So, > > D0. m `: 6 Train Result is the train of individual verbs. > > would become (or be understood as), > > D1. m `: 6 Train Result is the (possibly derived) > words created by executing the train > of the (possibly derived) words > represented by each AR. > > I have thought more about this and I am not quite sure about the wisdom of > banning, eventually (when the negligence rather than benevolence stops), > the boxed arrays of ARs currently supported by the interpreter. My > perspective comes from the tacit adverbial programer's viewport which will > try to explain next assuming that D1 is the law (i.e., henceforth kosher > also implies compliance with D1). > > If the argument of (`:6) is a list of ARs of primary parts-of-speech, (`:6) > produces the non-parenthesized (i.e., with the parsing rules implied > parenthesization) train of the corresponding primary parts-of-the-speech. > However, when its argument is boxed the interpreter's result is the train > which is parenthesized accordingly, and this is not kosher. > > How can this extra illegal flexibility be important to a tacit adverbial > programmer? Consider the following slight variation of my general-purpose > generator of tacit adverbs (hg), > > o=. @: > c=."_ > ar=. 5!:1@:< > > d=. (a0=. `'') (a1=. (@:[) ((<,'&')`) (`:6)) (a2=. (`(<(":0);_)) (`:6)) > av=. ((ar'a0')`) (`(ar'a1')) (`(ar'a2') ) (`:6) > assert 1 4 9 -: 1 2 3 *: av > > The only change was replacing (<'&') by (<,'&') (this does not me too > much). I think its construction and operation is kosher; ye, The Wise of > J, be the judges. > > The last part of (hg)'s construction is unchanged, > > 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) > > hg=. `((ar'a6')`(ar'a5')) (`:6) > > Again, if I am not mistaken, (hg)'s construction is kosher. However, > whether its operation is kosher, or not, depends on its controlling (tacit) > verb argument. This verb operates on the AR of the argument of the > generated adverb and, I believe, if (and only if) it produces the AR, or a > list of AR(s), representing the desired product, then it is kosher. Two > toy examples follow, one simple and another slightly more complicated. > > One can use (hg) to generate an adverb (a) which is meant to take a > non-parenthesized train of two or more proverbs and produce the verb where > (@:) is inserted between the proverbs, > > a=. ([ , (<,'@:') , ])/ o (((3 = ]) +. (_1 = ])) o (4!:0) # ]) o (<S:0) > f.hg > > This tacit fixed adverb operates in a kosher manner, > > (v0 v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6)a > v0@:v1@:v2@:v3@:v4@:v5@:v6 > > since the train produced is non-parenthesized. (If I am not mistaken.) > > In contrast, the following tacit fixed adverb (b) which generates an adverb > that produces a train of adverbs by bonding accordingly its list of > integers argument, > > an=. <@:((,'0') ,&:< ]) > > b=. (< o ((;:'&') , <) o an"0) o x: o (('';1)&{::) f.hg > > does not operate in a kosher manner (and eventually it will fail), > > _2 3 _1 b > ((&_2x)(&3x))(&_1x) > > +_2 3 _1 b 0 1 3 4 5 6 > _1 5 17 _31 65 _127 > > and its kosher counterpart would be more complicated (because of the > produced train parenthesization) when one does not need any additional > complications. (If I am not mistaken.) > > It might be due to trickery but this current behavior of the interpreter > comes across as a very useful feature from this perspective. I see a > benefit if it is preserved and I cannot see a disadvantage. Thus, assuming > I am not missing something important, I would like to offer my two cents, > > D2. m `: 6 Train Result is the (possibly derived) > words created by executing the train of the > (possibly derived) words represented by > each AR. If m is boxed, the boxed trains > are parenthesized accordingly. > > which is the same as D2 plus a fragment which was taken, almost verbatim, > from the (@.) entry. > > Igor Zhuravlov's 3-fork, for instance, is represented by, > > (<v3 ` v1 ` v4) ` v0 ` (<v4 ` v2 ` v5) > ┌──────────┬──┬──────────┐ > │┌──┬──┬──┐│v0│┌──┬──┬──┐│ > ││v3│v1│v4││ ││v4│v2│v5││ > │└──┴──┴──┘│ │└──┴──┴──┘│ > └──────────┴──┴──────────┘ > > (<v3 ` v1 ` v4) ` v0 ` (<v4 ` v2 ` v5) (`:6) > (v3 v1 v4) v0 v4 v2 v5 > > whereas, assuming D1, it is represented by (ye fill the blank), > > ... > > Either way, regardless of what is ultimately decided, I think, the (@.) and > (`) entries should be modified accordingly (I do not know about the concept > of gerund). > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 11:40 AM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think I agree. >> >> My vote would be that 'train' refers to any sequence of ARs and that >> when `:6 said 'train of individual verbs' it meant to say 'the (possibly >> derived) words created by executing the train of the (possibly derived) >> words represented by each AR'. >> >> I would say that (<,'"') is kosher and (<'"') not, already, based on >> this interpretation of what Ye Dic meant. The implementation is >> permissive in some cases. >> >> Henry Rich >> >> On 3/12/2020 11:21 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote: >>>> 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 >> >> -- >> 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