I had not spent enough time in nuvoc to notice this "atom is not an array" distinction.
Even now, looking at https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/AET#, this distinction does not really leap out at me. Still... it might be useful to have a word for the thing which an array with no dimensions (or an array whose dimensions are all 1s) contains. (And, other arrays would also contain atoms, of course, unless they had a dimension which was zero). That said... since all atoms in J are contained in arrays, from a user perspective, this also seems like a non-issue. (Which, perhaps, is why that distinction did not leap out at me). But, also, the line "An atom is a noun with the rank of zero" seems to get at the user perspective (where we're talking about arrays rather than array contents). It seems to me that if we explicitly wanted to talk about array contents as distinct from arrays, we would emphasize that issue and instead say that atoms cannot have rank, or something like that? [I am not convinced that this is a good idea. Since it's more about implementation details than the interface the user works with, nuvoc probably isn't the place for it?] And, *that* said, I think what you're getting at is the clause in the definition of "array" which says that it has more than zero dimensions. So... as far as nuvoc's glossary is concerned, we need to say "noun" if we want to talk about things with zero or more dimensions. Kind of sneaky, for those of us used to using 'array' for that purpose. But this gets into a bit of a bind with the definition of 'item'. There, to stick to this usage, you would say, perhaps: "A sub-noun whose rank is one less than that of the noun". Otherwise, a noun of rank 1 could not have items. (But my rephrasing also feels awkward.) Anyways... something to think about? Thanks, -- Raul On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 9:12 PM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > He's not using level to explain boxing: he's using it to represent > multidimensional unboxed arrays. I think that's a great idea, because > it makes the frame easier to think about than using a physical > representation of the data as a cube or table etc. > > Arnab: this may be a problem later, because 'level', as Devon says, is a > J term related to boxing. > > Also: you will have to decide whether you think an atom is an array. > NuVoc takes the position that an atom is NOT an array; it uses the terms > 'atom', array', and 'noun' as needed. There is distinguished opposition > to this view, including from the originator of the language, but NuVoc > is now officially sanctioned... > > I just now looked at the first pages. This is fine work. It gives good > motivation for taking the trouble to learn the language. Keep it up. > > Henry Rich > > On 1/19/2021 9:00 PM, Devon McCormick wrote: > > Hi Arnab, > > > > where you are using a tree metaphor to explain boxing, if you label the > > simple vector as having depth 0, rather than 1, it would line up with the > > result of the level verb (L.), e.g. > > L. i. 3 > > 0 > > L. 1 2;3 4;5 6 > > 1 > > > > Regards, > > > > Devon > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:56 PM HH PackRat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 1/19/21, Arnab Chakraborty <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Anyway, I have dumped a few more draft pages ( > >>> https://arnabc74.github.io/jsoft/) > >> The hotlink to nonlin11.html should be nonlin1.html to avoid a 404 > >> error. > >> > >> Harvey > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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
