Agreed!
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:57 AM Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would keep in mind that one advantage of redundant information (such
> as redundant parenthesis) is that this can let you ignore some
> surrounding issues.
>
> That is not always the best tactic - it often pays to have a deep
> understanding - but the ability to focus attention where it's needed
> is crucial.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:14 AM 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
> <programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
> >
> > Your interesting new example is
> >
> > (<,'/')`(<(<,'@')`(<(<,'2'),<g`h))`:6
> > /(@(g h))
> >
> > The explicit hook indicator (2) seems needed here because it seems hard
to weave extra boxing levels without the hook indicator, but there is such
a form:
> >
> > ((<,'/')`(<(<,'@')`(<<g`h)))`:6
> >
> > /(@(g h))
> >
> > ((;:'/@'),(g`h))@.(0 ; < 1 ; << 2 3)
> >
> > /(@(g h))
> >
> > So your D2 definition is already part of the implementation.
> >
> > Still, in constructing gerrunds/ARs, the advice to use the verb train
indicators when that is the intention seems recommendable/safe, though if
every train has a nested representation (I need more thought to evaluate)
then there'd be no reason to use the safe approach, and perhaps no reason
to not represent train ARs with nesting levels.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, March 18, 2020, 11:52:16 p.m. EDT, Jose Mario Quintana <
jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
