I'm glad you agreed on the fact that 1000 milliseconds = 1 second. (and not "1000 seconds * 1 millisecond" which would give "a dimensionless 1", which seems nonsense to me in any interpretable way.)
That is what I was stating, but obviously not clear enough (for you) to interpret it right. And it was also in line with the remark made by Sherlock, who was assuming that Wang expected the result of 6!:2 in milliseconds. I don't expect to understand ever any explanation of how "multiplying milliseconds by 1000 would give microseconds", as you wrote. R.E. Boss > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] Namens Raul Miller > Verzonden: dinsdag 7 mei 2013 19:36 > Aan: Chat forum > Onderwerp: Re: [Jchat] [Jprogramming] J on Julia benchmark > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:43 AM, bob therriault <[email protected]> wrote: > > So, 0.1 seconds * (1000 milliseconds % 1 second) would give you 100 > > milliseconds and the original seconds in the numerator and the > conversion seconds in the denominator cancel out leaving milliseconds (and > confirming that this is the result that you want). > > Put differently, 1000 milli- (or 1000 milliseconds % 1 second) is > equivalent to the numerical value 1. > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:05 PM, R.E. Boss <[email protected]> wrote: > > Milli is a prefix which stands for %1000. > > Agreed. > > > So if I multiply 1 millisecond with 1000 I get (*%)1000 seconds. > > I still have a problem with this notation. > > 1 millisecond is 0.001 seconds. > > ((*%) 1000) is 1000 * % 1000 so I would expect that (*%) 1000 seconds > to be 1000 seconds * % 1000 seconds - in other words, that looks to me > like a dimensionless 1. > > Meanwhile, it's indeed the case that 1000 * 1 millisecond would be 1 > second. Here, though we are not changing the units being used to > express the original value. Instead, we are finding a new value. > > But that does not seem, to me, relevant to the original post, where > the units provided by 6!:2 are seconds and the context involved > comparing timing from 6!:2 with other times which were apparently > expressed in milliseconds. > > It's the difference between "x = 1 second, what is x in milliseconds" > and "x = 1 second, how long would a thousand repetitions of x take". > Both can be valid questions, but only one seems valid in the context > of 1000 * 6!:2 > > > If I divide it by 1000 I get (%~%)1000 which is a micro second. > > That's what I wrote and (IMO obvious) how it should be interpreted. > > It may be obvious to you, but I am having trouble fitting these > observations into the original context of this thread. That's what's > confusing me. > > -- > Raul > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
