> You are suggesting that a list of ARs be construed as a valid AR.
No, I would not dare to mess with the description of what an AR is.
Probably the source of the confusion was my unfortunate use of the phrases
"M represents R" when I just meant "The product of M `:6 is R." What I am
suggesting is to extend the description of what a kosher argument (m) is in
(m`:6). (Its valid boxed structure would be similar to the one for a
(current) kosher argument (n) in (m@.n).)
This is a more precise recursive description of the construction of a
kosher argument (m) in (m`:6) assuming D2 holds:
A <kosher argument> is,
0. An AR, or
1. A list of one or more <kosher argument>s, or
2. A boxed <kosher argument>.
If (2) above is not included then it becomes the description of the
construction of a valid argument assuming D1 holds (if I am not mistaken).
(If one replaces (AR) above by (integer) then, I think, it becomes a
description of the construction of a (current) kosher argument (n) in (m@
.n).)
Hopefully, answering the question (and it is a very good question) you
posed might clarify further what I am trying to convey. Assuming (g) and
(h) are verbs, if (f) is a verb then,
f`(<g`h)
┌─┬─────┐
│f│┌─┬─┐│
│ ││g│h││
│ │└─┴─┘│
└─┴─────┘
f`(<g`h) `: 6
f (g h)
This argument is not a list of ARs regardless if one is assuming D1 or D2.
It is not kosher assuming D1 but it is assuming D2. Likewise, if (f) is a
conjunction, say (@), then,
(<,'@')`(<g`h)
┌─┬─────┐
│@│┌─┬─┐│
│ ││g│h││
│ │└─┴─┘│
└─┴─────┘
(<,'@')`(<g`h) `:6
@(g h)
Again, this argument is not a list of ARs regardless if one is assuming D1
or D2. It is not kosher assuming D1 but it is assuming D2. In addition,
in both scenarios (if (f) is a verb or (f) is a conjunction) the product,
assuming D2, can be thought as a train of two entities, the trailing one
being a derived entity (g h).
In contrast, the boxed form of ((<,'@')`(<g`h)),
<(<,'@')`(<g`h)
┌─────────┐
│┌─┬─────┐│
││@│┌─┬─┐││
││ ││g│h│││
││ │└─┴─┘││
│└─┴─────┘│
└─────────┘
(<(<,'@')`(<g`h)) `:6
g@h
Is the AR of g@h and it is kosher assuming D1 (and, of course assuming D2
as well). Furthermore, one can simply use,
(;:'g@h')
┌─┬─┬─┐
│g│@│h│
└─┴─┴─┘
(;:'g@h') `:6
g@h
the result is the same but it is produced as the train of three entities.
A remaining question is, why the result of ((<(<,'@')`(<g`h)) `:6) is not
(@(g h))? Apparently, the interpreter gives priority to ARs.
> I don't like having to parse the ARs to figure out how to interpret them.
What is the interpreter doing now? I do not know... Maybe you can let us
know?
How would one produce, for instance, (/(@g h)) then? One way is to use the
AR of (u v),
(<,'/')`(<(<,'@')`(<(<,'2'),<g`h))
┌─┬─────────────┐
│/│┌─┬─────────┐│
│ ││@│┌─┬─────┐││
│ ││ ││2│┌─┬─┐│││
│ ││ ││ ││g│h││││
│ ││ ││ │└─┴─┘│││
│ ││ │└─┴─────┘││
│ │└─┴─────────┘│
└─┴─────────────┘
(<,'/')`(<(<,'@')`(<(<,'2'),<g`h)) `:6
/(@(g h))
The above is just an elaborated version of Pascal's answer given
earlier. Thinking
more about it, if D2 were adopted, I do not think any text in NuVoc would
have to be changed regarding tie (`), not even the description of gerund
unless one would like to refer to (m) in m`:6 as a gerund. The agenda (@.)
entry of the Dictionary would have to be understood accordingly as well.
I hope it helps.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:46 AM Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
