Tom did, in the very post starting this thread:
(1+i. 4 3) +/ . * 1+i. 3 4
38 44 50 56
83 98 113 128
128 152 176 200
173 206 239 272
Am 19.07.22 um 20:10 schrieb Devon McCormick:
I'm puzzled why no one has used the basic matrix multiplication expression
in J.
matmul3
([: +/ *)"1
I'm puzzled why no one has used the basic matrix multiplication expression
in J.
matmul3
([: +/ *)"1 _
mat1=. <.0.5+10*<:+:1000 1000?@$0
mat0=. <.0.5+10*<:+:1000 1000?@$0
(10) 6!:2 'mat0 matmul3 mat1'
0.737084
(10) 6!:2 'mat0 +/ . * mat1'
0.0499271
(mat0 matmul3 mat1) -: mat0 +/
[:y has the important function of signaling domain error.
Henry Rich
On 7/19/2022 2:35 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
I'll add that the fairly recent change of u@n being a constant verb for n is
very positive.
Of the approaches I suggested for defining the adverb, the first I
I missed that. I think this is an elegant way that avoids explicit rank.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 2:13 PM Hauke Rehr wrote:
> Tom did, in the very post starting this thread:
>
> (1+i. 4 3) +/ . * 1+i. 3 4
> 38 44 50 56
> 83 98 113 128
> 128 152 176 200
> 173 206 239 272
>
> Am
it's not a big deal.
a generic polymorphic replacement to @ is:
>: {{if. isNoun 'v' do. u n else. u@v end.}}3
4
1 >: 2 : 'if. isNoun ''v'' do. u n else. u@v end.' + 3
5
but I think forming trains in form of ([: u n) as an escape when using (`:6)
formation (more flexible than "real forks")
I'll add that the fairly recent change of u@n being a constant verb for n is
very positive.
Of the approaches I suggested for defining the adverb, the first I prefer.
expecting an adverb to always return a verb is more user friendly than deciding
for them.
(>:@1) 3
2
is good behaviour if
I had a chance to digest the K-way of lists of a list method Raul presented in
J.
After I understood it somewhat and its use of the leaf operator. I was curious
as
how fast these things ran, as implied by Raghu and Raul it was fairly slow
compared to
the J matrix implementation proposed by
On Tue, 19 Jul 2022, Thomas McGuire wrote:
Now the wierd thing is the timing for matmul3 is slow on par with emulating K
matrices in J
But if I use the fork directly it is as fast as Raul’s solution
You are measuring two completely different things.
10 timex'bmat1 ([: +/ *)"1 _ bmat2'
My late night laziness and I got bitten by the 13 : definition doesn’t always
work
correctly with both x and y variables. Which I just assumed was working
correctly.
Now when I fix the definition of matmul3 so it works correctly (as Elijah
pointed out) the variable
representation does not
some options,
if you want your adverb to always produce a verb:
1 (>:@)
>:@1
1 (>:@) 4
2 NB. increment on constant of 1 (u/m parameter)
+: (>:@) 4
9 NB. increment after applying u (double) to y
if you want "polymorphism" in your adverb to return noun result or verb
depending on u
10 matches
Mail list logo
