[Jprogramming] a long-form essay
'lindaalvord' via Programming
programming at jsoftware.com
Wed Jul 3 14:23:18 UTC 2019
In an android reply all the returns are removed. How can I prevent that?Linda. .Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: 'lindaalvord' via Programming <programming at jsoftware.com> Date: 7/3/19 10:12 AM (GMT-05:00) To: programming at jsoftware.com Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] a long-form essay Suppose you start with an idea.5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5. Then model it. 16* (i.3)=/i.3 .16 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 16. Then. f=: 13 :' y* (i.3)=/i.3' f 16. 16 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 16 Then let 13 : make inprovements. f(3 3$1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1) * ] LindaSent from Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone-------- Original message --------From: Devon McCormick <devonmcc at gmail.com> Date: 6/30/19 11:40 AM (GMT-05:00) To: J-programming forum <programming at jsoftware.com> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] a long-form essay I routinely "cheat" when building tacit phrases by taking a look at what"13 :" does: 13 : '(2$x)$(>:x){.y'(2 $ [) $ ] {.~ [: >: [ 3 ((2 $ [) $ ] {.~ [: >: [) 55 0 00 5 00 0 5The "trick" I see it doing here is flipping "(>:x) {. y " to " ] {.~ [: >: ",i.e. reversing the arguments of "{." so the monadic use of ">:" is on theright, avoiding the parenthesization.On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:41 AM Daniel Eklund <doeklund at gmail.com> wrote:> Bill,>> Thank you.>> Your succinct definition of & operating on _verbs_ makes it clear.>> Although I was drawn to ampersand because my hard-coded was bonding a noun,> I could not just use it with in a different context without understanding> the difference.>> thanks again>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:06 AM bill lam <bbill.lam at gmail.com> wrote:>> > When & works for verbs.> > x u&v y <=> (v x) u (v y)> > for your case> > 5 {.&] 3 <=> (] 5) {. (] 3)> > 5 {.&[ 3 <=> ([ 5) {. ([ 3)> >> > but both MONAD [ and ] return its RIGHT argument.> > so the &] or &[ is redundant and it is the same as> > {.> >> > Something like,> >> > Myverb =: 2&#@:<:@:[ $ {.> > Myverb2 =: 2&#@:<:@:] $ {.~> >> > tl;dr sorry.> >> > Sat, 29 Jun 2019, Daniel Eklund написал(а):> > > Hey all,> > >> > > I am posting a long email as I am hoping to understand from the> > collective> > > wisdom here. Apologies if this was somewhere in the archives but I> have> > > not been able to find it.> > >> > > I’m trying to understand the subtleties in binding conjunctions via> tacit> > > forks (or anything tacit). My fumbling has proved mildly> > > counter-intuitive, and I’m hoping someone here can point me in the> right> > > direction and/or confirm my conclusions are directionally correct.> > >> > > Problem: I want to create a verb that allows be to create an identity> > > matrix filled with a numeral (filled-noun) like:> > >> > > 1 Myverb 4> > >> > > 1 0 0 0> > >> > > 0 1 0 0> > >> > > 0 0 1 0> > >> > > 0 0 0 1> > >> > > Or> > >> > > 2 Myverb 4> > >> > > 2 0 0 0> > >> > > 0 2 0 0> > >> > > 0 0 2 0> > >> > > 0 0 0 2> > >> > > I know there are many ways to do this and the point of the task is> purely> > > for me to experiment with tacit composition.> > >> > > I found, quite easily I could do> > >> > > ({.&1) 5> > >> > > 1 0 0 0 0> > >> > > And therefore> > >> > > 4 4 $ ({.&1) 5> > >> > > 1 0 0 0> > >> > > 0 1 0 0> > >> > > 0 0 1 0> > >> > > 0 0 0 1> > >> > > Which leads me to> > >> > > (2&#@:<: $ {.&1) 5> > >> > > 1 0 0 0> > >> > > 0 1 0 0> > >> > > 0 0 1 0> > >> > > 0 0 0 1> > >> > > Using a monadic fork.> > >> > > But now I want to pass the bound noun to Take ( {. ) so that it’s not> > just> > > hard-coded as a ‘1’ and thus need a dyadic fork.> > >> > > I stumbled into something that works but left me with questions> (notice I> > > had to switch sides for dimension and the filler-noun):> > >> > > Myverb =: 2&#@:<:@:[ $ {.&]> > >> > >> > >> > > 5 Myverb 3 NB. The 5 is the shape of the square, and> > >> > > NB. the ‘3’ is the filler (the opposite of> > what> > > I wanted originally)> > >> > > 3 0 0 0> > >> > > 0 3 0 0> > >> > > 0 0 3 0> > >> > > 0 0 0 3> > >> > > The right-verb in the fork seems to be where I had a problem truly> > > understanding. Given that the above works, I thought that swapping the> > > SameLeft verb and the SameRight verb _should_ give me the following> that> > > works> > >> > > Myverb =: 2&#@:<:@:[ $ {.&]> > >> > > Myverb2 =: 2&#@:<:@:] $ {.&[ NB. Just swapping the ‘]’> and> > > the ‘[‘> > >> > > But it gives me weird results.> > >> > > 3 Myverb2 5> > >> > > 5 0 0 5> > >> > > 0 0 5 0> > >> > > 0 5 0 0> > >> > > 5 0 0 5> > >> > > I think I was able to figure it out by realizing that in the phrase> > >> > > {.&[> > >> > > The ‘leftness’ of the SameLeft verb binds overrides the syntactic> > > suggestion that the input will be bound to the right, and thus> > >> > > 3 {.&[ 5> > >> > > 5 0 0> > >> > > Gets reshaped into the matrix I did not want. Given that, I can> finally> > do:> > >> > > Myverb3 =: 2&#@:<:@:] $ {.~&[> > >> > > _1 Myverb3 5> > >> > > _1 0 0 0> > >> > > 0 _1 0 0> > >> > > 0 0 _1 0> > >> > > 0 0 0 _1> > >> > > By commuting the right verb in the fork.> > >> > > As I was concentrating just on the conjunction I got the following> > results,> > > and think I understand, but would appreciate confirmation, a pat on the> > > back, or further readings:> > >> > > ({.&[) 5 NB. Experiment (A)> > >> > > 5> > >> > > ({.&]) 5 NB. Experiment (B)> > >> > > 5> > >> > > 3 ({.&]) 5 NB. Experiment (C)> > >> > > 5 0 0> > >> > > 3 ({.&[) 5 NB. Experiment (D)> > >> > > 5 0 0> > >> > > 5 ({.&) NB. Experiment (E)> > >> > > {.&5> > >> > > ({.&) 5 NB. Experiment (F)> > >> > > |syntax error> > >> > > 5 (&{.) NB. Experiment (G)> > >> > > 5&{.> > >> > > (&{.) 5 NB. Experiment (H)> > >> > > |syntax error> > >> > >> > > Summary:> > >> > > In experiment (A) the monadic application turns the SameLeft into Same> > > which feeds its results (via compose) to Head and resolves to {. 5 and> > > thus 5.> > >> > > In experiment (B) the same thing occurs except it is SameRight into> Same.> > >> > > In experiment ( C) with a dyadic invocation, the SameRight’s> ‘rightness’> > > binds the 5 to the right side, and 3 is fed as the left argument to as> > it> > > should.> > >> > > In experiment (D) with a dyadic invocation, the SameLeft’s ‘leftness’> > binds> > > the 3 to the left side of the argument (despite it looking like it is> > bound> > > on the right -- it is helpful now to understand ampersand as ‘compose’> > and> > > not ‘bind) and the results are the same as experiment (C ).> > >> > > In experiment (E) the conjuctive fragment (no SameRight or SameLeft)> has> > > become an _adverb_ and thus seeks to the bind to the left -- and> > produces a> > > verb with a noun bound to the right. NB. I was really confused when I> > saw> > > that this parsed.> > >> > > In experiment (F) I proved to myself that the fragment without the> > > SameRight or SameLeft was just a naked adverb because I got a syntactic> > > error as an adverb resolves to the left.> > >> > > In experiment (G) I moved the ampersand around on the fragment and saw> > that> > > now the ampersand was ‘respecting’ the direction of binding (binding on> > the> > > left instead of the right as in experiment (E)). This also continued> the> > > evidence that the fragment was an adverb.> > >> > > Experiment (H) cemented my belief that either fragment (&{.) or ({.&)> > are> > > induced adverbs.> > >> > > Anyways, thank you for reading and I hope for some feedback. In all of> > the> > > above, I think experiment D crystalizes the source of my initial (and> > > long-lasting) confusion, hopefully now resolved.> > >> > > Thank you> > >> > > Daniel Eklund> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm> >> > --> > regards,> > ====================================================> > GPG key 1024D/4434BAB3 2008-08-24> > gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --armor --export 4434BAB3> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm>-- Devon McCormick, CFAQuantitative Consultant----------------------------------------------------------------------For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm----------------------------------------------------------------------For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
More information about the Programming
mailing list