Please see Learning J Part I, Part II, and Part III.

Strings of verbs that are not parseable with the usual dyadic–monadic machinery are called *trains*. `(%+/)`

is a train of two verbs; the first verb is `%`

(division), the second is `+/`

(the verb `+`

modified by the adverb `/`

to produce the *sum-list* verb).

A train of two verbs `f g`

is called a *hook* (or *bident*, but that isn’t used as much). When used monadically `(f g) x`

is the same as `x f g x`

. Notice the repetition of the `x` operand.

(+-)7 NB. 7 - 7 = 0 0 (*-)2 NB. 2 * -2 _4 (**:)3 NB. * is times and *: is square 27

So `(%+/) n`

is the same as ` n % +/ n`

which if `n` is a list then this rescales the list so that the sum of the result is 1:

i. 5 0 1 2 3 4 (%+/)i.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Dyadic hooks are boring, `x (f g) y`

is the same as `x f g y`

.

A 3-element train, `f g h`

, is called a *fork* (or, again less often, *trident*). The monadic case `(f g h) y`

is the same as `(f y) g (h y)`

, and the dyadic case `x (f g h) y`

is the same as `(x f y) g (x h y)`

.

This is all tolerably well explained in Appendix F of the J dictionary.

The mnemonic that I use for remembering the difference between monadic and dyadic tridents is that the monadic case is just the same as the dyadic case but with `x` removed. Dyadic: `(x f y) g (x h y)`

; Monadic: `(f y) g (h y)`

.

Recall the parsing rules of Appendix E, and observe that larger sequences of verbs get decomposed into hooks and forks. `b c d e`

is `b (c d e)`

; that is, the hook of `b`

and the fork `c d e`

. `a b c d e`

is a fork of a fork: `a b (c d e)`

.

The classic pedagogical fork computes the average of a list:

avg =: +/ % # avg 6 7 8 7 avg 1 2 4 8 16 6.2 avg 2 ^ i. 5 6.2

Observe that the repetition of operands is useful and can avoid temporaries. `i.11 */ i.11`

produces a multiplication table. We can use the fact that a bident duplicates its operand: `(*/ g) i. 11`

will do if we can find a monadic `g` that does nothing. Both `[`

and `]`

are monadic identities. So we can get the same multiplication table with `(*/]) i. 11`

. As it happens this simple duplication is so useful that there’s an adverb, `~`

(twiddles), to do it. `u~ y`

is `y u y`

. So `*/~ i. 11`

also produces the same table.

Suppose we wanted to compute triangular numbers. tri(n) = (n×(n+1))/2. Perhaps we would like to use J to solve Gauss’s little school problem. Note that n×(n+1) can be computed with a bident: `(*>:)`

(`>:`

is the successor function). Now all we have to do is halve the answer. The currying conjunction `&`

comes in handy. The monadic `%&2`

halves its operand; `%&2 y`

is the same as `y%2`

. We can use `@`

to compose these two:

tri =: %&2 @ (*>:) tri i.10 0 1 3 6 10 15 21 28 36 45

In fact the brackets aren’t necessary. We can get rid of the brackets around the bident by using the monadic identity, `[`

, in a trident:

tri =: %&2 @ [*>:

It's a little shorter, but I'm not convinced that it's any neater.

I tried this form, and it works, but not for the reasons that I thought it did. The spacing I've used above suggests I have a trident on the right, a curried divide operator on the left, and I've joined them with `@`

. We can use J to see how it's actually been parsed:

%&2 @ [*>: +-------------+-+--+ |+-------+-+-+|*|>:| ||+-+-+-+|@|[|| | | |||%|&|2|| | || | | ||+-+-+-+| | || | | |+-------+-+-+| | | +-------------+-+--+

The kinda scary looking boxes are just another way to write brackets (in this case). So `%&2 @ [*>:`

turns out to be parsed as `((%&2)@[)*>:`

. Lesson: be careful. This is actually computing (n/2)×(n+1); of course this is mathematically the same as (n×(n+1))/2 but the latter can be done in integer arithmetic whereas the former requires fractions. Good job halving is an exact operation in IEEE arithmetic.

The reason `%&2@[*>:`

gets parsed as it does is that the trident reduction cannot take place if there is a conjunction to the left of the potential trident. When the stack has the four terms `@ [ * >:`

on it, `@`

is a conjunction so `[ * >:`

will not be reduced to a trident. The conjunctions get reduced first.

Conjunctions get reduced left to right. `%&2@[`

is `(%&2)@[`

. Referring to the parsing table again we see that's because a conjunction won't be reduced if there is a conjunction immediately to its left.

Since `[`

is monadic identity, the `[`

in `%&2@[`

is not necessary. We can just use `%&2`

instead: `%&2*>:`

. It also turns out that dividing by 2 is sufficiently useful that there's a primitive to do it: `-:`

. So we can use `tri =: -:*>:`

, which is just a single trident.

Cap, spelt `[:`

, is a magic verb used in tridents. `[: g h`

is the same as `f g h`

but without the entire `f` branch. So `x ([: g h) y`

is `g (x h y)`

, and `([: g h) y`

is `g h y`

.

The last form of cap is found in our original triangle formula that used `@`

: `tri =: %&2 @ (*>:)`

. We can remove the `@`

conjunction and replace it with a cap instead:

tri =. [: %&2 (*>:)

And this time we can replace the bracketed bident on the right with a trident that uses `[`

:

tri =. [: %&2 [*>: tri +--+-------+--------+ |[:|+-+-+-+|+-+-+--+| | ||%|&|2|||[|*|>:|| | |+-+-+-+|+-+-+--+| +--+-------+--------+

This does get parsed how we (or at least I) expect, with `[ * >:`

on the right being reduced to a trident.

Using `-:`

and, for amusement, swapping `]`

for `[`

we get:

tri =: [:-:]*>:

To be honest this seems like an exercise in fruitless manipulation, but I'm sure I'll be finding all sorts of witty things we can do with forks and hooks.

2007-05-14 at 14:47:13

No comment.

2007-05-21 at 13:43:12

You can configure J to display trains (and other derived functions) in different ways.

If you are using a windowed instance of J, you can use the Edit->Configure menu option. If you are using the command line, you can use 9!:3, with the default being 9!:3]2 and my personal favorite being 9!:3]5 (but for learning, I would probably use something like 9!:3]6 4 5 which, ironically, you can’t quite select with the GUI).

2007-05-21 at 17:09:59

Thanks for the tip. I have to say I find the tree presentation to be butt ugly. I like the idea of showing both the parenthesised and the linear representation with 6 5.

The «9!:3]6 4 5» is a witty use of what presumably becomes an idomatic bident.

I’m used to the boxes now. And it feels closer to the Truth.

2007-05-21 at 17:41:00

Yeah, boxes are closer to the Truth. That said, boxes, linear and parenthesised are all complete — the mapping from J to those forms and back is 1:1. That said, only linear (and parenthesised) map 1:1 though the console. You can’t throw the boxes at a console session and expect to get anything useful — even if they do perhaps provide deeper insight into how J represents things internally.

Anyways, the nice thing about personal taste is that you can have yours without any work on my part.

2011-04-25 at 01:48:33

I read all of the Parts, and now my head hurts.

Thanks tho. I now understand more of the values and the order to place them in.