Experimenting with Euler Problem 731,  I should get:
   %3(] * <.@^)2<.@^>: i.3. NB. 1/(b^(c^k).c^k) in maths notation
0.0555556 0.00308642 1.9052e_5
   %3x(] * <.@^)2x<.@^>: i.3. NB. Try extended nos 
1r18 1r324 1r52488

   +/\%3x(] * <.@^)2x<.@^>: i.3. NB.  Cum sum 
1r18 19r324 3079r52488

   23j20":,.+/\%3x(] * <.@^)2x<.@^>: i.3. Looking for repeated pattern ....
 0.05555555555555555556
 0.05864197530864197531
 0.05866102728242645938

Only using k=1,3 here for concise display.

This is the sort of thing I see here on the iPad, and also in J901
However, in J902 beta i, I get (can’t email from Windows just now, so faking 
it!):

   +/\%3x(] * <.@^)2x<.@^>: i.3. 
0 0 0

My mistake!?

Thanks,

Mike


Sent from my iPad

> On 25 Oct 2020, at 16:42, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Modern J uses a virtual block for the result of (, y), so now (+/@, y) and 
> (+/ , y) run at the same speed.  A different example is needed.
> 
> Henry Rich
> 
>> On 10/25/2020 12:01 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
>> Jan-Pieter,
>> 
>> First, thanks for pointing out the link.
>> But I am having some problems.
>> 
>> [*******my comment 0) here is likely inappropriate in light of Henry's
>> reply in this thread
>> 0) Are you suggesting that some wording be added to that link? It looks to
>> me as if you are but where?
>> I say where because there are at least 3 different concepts treated on that
>> page: SC, EIP, and AIP.
>> ]
>> 
>> 
>> 1) I am finding problems on that page that I cannot explain. For example,
>> a) on one line discussing EIP the following is stated twice, when it is
>> clear that the two should be different `(V0@[ V1 V2)` .
>> b) [this comment may also be explained by Henry's reply but I don't see how]
>>    I cannot confirm the improvements suggested by the example there.
>> Perhaps using j807 is the problem. See my session below.
>>    9!:52''
>> 1
>>    a =: 1000 1000 ?@$ 0            NB. it is unfortunate that the +/ result
>> suggests that a contains integers, not reals
>>    +/ , a                                        NB. perhaps 1000 1000
>> could be reduced to 25 25?
>> 499960
>>    +/@, a
>> 499960
>>    ts =: 6!:2 , 7!:2@]
>>    ts '+/ , a'                   NB. notice the small space usage here
>> 0.001987 1408
>>    ts '+/@, a'                NB. the time reduction is so small as to be
>> "within statistical error"
>> 0.001965 1536
>>    JVERSION
>> Engine: j807/j64/darwin
>> Release-c: commercial/2019-02-24T10:50:40
>> Library: 8.07.26
>> Platform: Darwin 64
>> Installer: J807 install
>> InstallPath: /users/brian/j64-807
>> Contact: www.jsoftware.com
>> 
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 8:42 AM Jan-Pieter Jacobs <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> I guess this is worth mentioning here:
>>> 
>>> https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/SpecialCombinations#Assignments_In_Place_.28AIP.29
>>> 
>>> Assignments are done in place if you use a specific form recognised by the
>>> interpreter.
>>> 
>>> If you do not assign the result, or use it in a longer sentence, it will
>>> not be recognised, copying over the entire array, rather than updating a
>>> single element.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Jan-Pieter
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>> (B=)
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> 
> 
> -- 
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://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