Why LLMs Can't Write Q/Kdb+: Writing Code Right-to-Left

some hacks for time / position/ space flipping the models:

- test spate of diffusion models emerging. pro is faster, con is smaller context, ymmv is if trained on that language &/or context large enough to ICL lang booster info

- exploit known LTL tricks that may work there’s bunch of these

- e.g., tell model to gen drafts in some sort RPN variant of lang, if tests tell it to simulate creating such a fork of this and then gen clean standard form at end

- have it be explicit about leapfrogging recall and reasoning, eg be excessively verbose with comments can regex strip later

- have it build a stack / combo of the RPN & COT & bootstrapping its own ICL

- exploit causal markers - think tags that can splinter time - this can really boost any of the above methods - eg give each instance of things disjoint time tags, A1 vs K37 for numbered instances of things that share a given space - like a time GUID

- use orthogonal groups of such tags to splinter time and space recall and reasoning in model, to include seemingly naive things like pass 1 etc

- our recent arXiv paper on HDRAM / hypertokens pushes causal markers to classic-quantum holographic extreme and was built for this, next version will be more accessible

- the motivators are simple - models fork on prefix-free modulo embedding noise, so the more you make prefix-free, the better the performance, there’s some massive caveats on how to do this perfectly which is exactly our precise work - think 2x to 10x gain on model and similar on reasoning, again ymmv as we update preprint, post second paper that makes baseline better, prep git release etc to make it tons easier to get better recall and exploit same to get better reasoning by making it possible for any model to do the equivalent of arbitrary RPN

- our future state is exactly this a prompt compiler for exactly this use case - explainable time-independent computation in any model

Everybody learns in school the traditional convention for writing mathematical expressions.

It appears that for most people it is difficult or impossible to unlearn later such a convention, even if they encounter a superior convention.

On the other hand, I am among those fewer for which this is not true, so when I have first read the book "A Programming Language" of K. Iverson, on which the later APL language and its successors have been based, I have immediately recognized that the Iverson convention is much better than the school convention, and I have no trouble in using it.

When reading a program written with the Iverson convention, you still read from left to right, but you typically do not read until the end of the line, but only as much of the left part as necessary to understand the purpose of the line. (Because the right operand of any operator is everything that follows it until the end of the line, and the details of that computation may be irrelevant. With school notation, when searching where a variable has been modified and how, you must jump between the beginning of the line and the end of the line, to find the last operations that have generated the stored value, when reading and understanding the complete expression would be a waste of time.)

The original motivation of the Iverson convention, which remains very important, was to give a useful meaning for a sequence of identical non-commutative operators, e.g. subtraction and division. This is particularly desirable when the operators are used in vector reductions.

(With school notation, a0 - a1 - a2 - ... - an is seldom a useful expression, but with the Iverson convention it becomes alternate sum, which is needed very frequently. Similarly for division.)

Is there a top 100 package that does something funny on import?