Seems like an interesting project. My initial thoughts are how to parse the 
verbs.

I suppose f` ''  
essentially gives the representation of the verb, which can be tokenized and 
then symbolically evaluated.

e.g. 
f=:%+*:
g=.   (f f.)`''
Then tokenize g into the consituent verbs, and evaluate from there.

Am I going in the wrong direction? This is just an initial thought.

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 9/29/17, Henry Rich <henryhr...@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Jsource] Low hanging fruit in d.
 To: sou...@jsoftware.com
 Date: Friday, September 29, 2017, 12:45 PM
 
 IIRC Roger decided that
 implementing d. in C code was a mistake, because 
 there are so many possible forms.  They could
 be recognized by a J 
 adverb that analyzed
 the operand and produced the correct verb.  Then it 
 would be easy to expand the list.
 
 So we haven't worked much
 on fixing/extending d.
 
 The
 real boon would be if you stepped up and wrote that adverb
 (in J) 
 that did the work of d. .  I will
 help you if you like.  The end result 
 would be better symbolic integration.
 
 If you make progress, we could
 think about how to make a J primitive 
 (d.)
 turn into an invocation of a user-defined verb: a feature
 that 
 would have wide ramifications.
 
 Henry Rich
 
 On 9/28/2017 11:38 PM, 'Jon Hough' via
 Source wrote:
 > Looking through cd.c
 (bearing in mind I am still trying to get my head around the
 source code),  I noticed d. has missed a lot of low hanging
 fruit in the form of
 >
 > (f * g) d. _1
 >
 > e.g from around line 337 of cd.c:
 > static F2(jtintgtymes){A f=a,g=w;
 >   RZ(a&&w);
 >   R A0;
 > }    /*
 integral of a * w */
 >
 > d. gives up for pretty much any case of f
 * g, when it should be possible to evaluate a lot of
 expressions, e.g. polynomial * exponential  and some trig *
 exponential, and some trig * polynomial.
 >
 > I know symbolic
 integration is a vipers nest and  the complexity can
 explode, but it should be possible to add more functionality
 to d.
 >
 > I have done
 some playing around and implemented some functionality (poly
 * exp), but still very messy and not worth showing yet. One
 issue is tidying up the resulting expression. e.g.
 rebracketing and factoring out common expressions.
 >
 > Anyway, I wonder if
 it is worth adding more functionality to d.
 >
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
 
 
 ---
 This email has been checked for viruses by
 AVG.
 http://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

Reply via email to