Hauke, Might this help towards what you're aiming to do?
https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/User:Ian_Clark/credo Ian On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 at 11:50, Hauke Rehr <[email protected]> wrote: > re-implementing in another language is often helpful > I thought lua’s tables should lend themselves to the > structure we have here, so I tried another approach – > and found another quirk: > your solution depends on the order of entry > > I had to add lines 50, 106–109 incl., and change > lines 61 and 277 in order to get the correct results. > > > Am 08.01.21 um 07:56 schrieb Hauke Rehr: > > … and here’s a J implementation (and output) > > but I stumbled upon another aspect that didn’t > > match the specification as I understood it: > > > > consider the first example 13510: > > your solution contains SIMUL which is 13509 > > so I implemented that whenever either of them > > has a 0, they match. I think that’s wrong. > > The query may be more general but not more > > specific than the things we want it to match. > > > > In my D implementation, it’s in the function > > match in lines 105 through 117, (I already > > wondered if it’s wrong but didn’t check again > > after I found I got your ‘correct’ results); > > in the J script, it’s where the comment says > > what’s superfluous. > > > > … and I edited the 0 : 0 content (added an LF) > > in order to not have to do too much parsing > > > > cheers, > > Hauke > > > > > > Am 08.01.21 um 04:41 schrieb Hauke Rehr: > >> I jotted down a q&d-implementation in D. > >> When I found out that your example doesn’t > >> fit the hierarcical layout (multiple instances > >> for 11, for example, so 11 isn’t a category > >> even though there are things like 111), > >> I ripped out the code depending on the hierarchy. > >> > >> The results agree with your results so I think > >> this should be a correct re-implementation. > >> > >> Am 08.01.21 um 00:30 schrieb Hauke Rehr: > >>> That post was written too soon. > >>> Now that I’ve taken a look at what ordinal fractions > >>> are meant to be, it looks to me more like what I think > >>> I first came to know when learning some prolog. > >>> I try to write down my new understanding of ordinal fractions, > >>> in a more old-fashioned lingo of enums (concepts) > >>> with their elements, and tagging data with them: > >>> > >>> there is an a priori given set of hierarchical enums > >>> where subordinate ones’ range and meaning may depend > >>> on superordinate ones > >>> you tag any data by at most one element of each enum > >>> where the elements themselves are part of the data > >>> (and are tagged by themselves only) > >>> any data with an incomplete set of tags is a category > >>> all “leaf data” if thought of the hierarchy as a tree > >>> is given a full set of tags. > >>> then you just do some matching where everything matches unless > >>> there is an enum the things to be matched both have an entry of > >>> and where the entries don’t agree > >>> > >>> @bo: Is this “translation” of the concept of ordinal fractions > adequate? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > -- > ---------------------- > mail written using NEO > neo-layout.org > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
