The adverse provides a succinct solution and helps performance as well. It also gave me the idea of using "agenda", like this (to cap values at "2" instead of "_"):
(( +*:`2: @. (2:<|)"0)^:250~)"0(24%~i:_24)j.~/36%~_72+i.88 Thanks. On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Cliff Reiter <[email protected]> wrote: > You can use adverse too > {&'#.'@(2:<|)@ (((+*:) :: _:)^:250~)"0(24%~i:_24)j.~/36%~_72+i.88 > > > On 10/31/2014 1:18 PM, Devon McCormick wrote: > >> Yes - I don't see how either. In any case, I fixed it by changing the >> lovely, simple "(+*:)" to a "capped" version: >> 2&((2j2,~]){~[<[:|])@:(+*:)"0). >> So, anyone who's interested in this should try >> >> {&'#.'@(2:<|)@((2&((2j2 ,~ ]) {~ [ < [: | >> ])@:(+*:)"0)^:30~)(24%~i:_24)j.~/36%~_72+i.88 >> >> or, even better, this >> >> load 'viewmat' >> viewmat ((2&((2j2 ,~ ]) {~ [ < [: | >> ])@:(+*:)"0)^:20~)(512%~i:_512)j.~/419%~_825+i.1024 >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Joe Bogner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I may be stating the obvious, but it looks like the numbers are >>> doubling per iteration >>> >>> {. 0 {"1 ((+*:)^:8~)(12%~i:_12)j.~/18%~_36+i.44 >>> 4.41152e66j_1.05844e67 >>> >>> {. 0 {"1 ((+*:)^:9~)(12%~i:_12)j.~/18%~_36+i.44 >>> _9.25685e133j_9.33868e133 >>> >>> {. 0 {"1 ((+*:)^:10~)(12%~i:_12)j.~/18%~_36+i.44 >>> _1.52155e266j1.72894e268 >>> >>> It overflows at 11 >>> >>> I don't see how it could have worked with the same inputs above 10 before >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Aai <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Lowering the iteration to 11 gives me a result. >>>> >>>> Devon McCormick schreef op 31-10-14 om 16:49: >>>> >>>> I don't know when it worked or on what version - I just have a snippet >>>>> >>>> in >>> >>>> a >>>>> file. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Joe Bogner <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Devon - any idea what version / platform it worked on? I tried >>>>>> j6.02 and j8.01 32bit along with j8.03 64 bit and all reported the >>>>>> same >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Devon McCormick <[email protected] >>>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that this expression >>>>>>> >>>>>>> {&'#.'@(2:<|)@((+*:)^:250~)(12%~i:_12)j.~/18%~_36+i.44 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> used to work but now fails with "NaN error" if the value of the power >>>>>>> iteration, shown as 250 here, is any greater than 10 or 11. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is anyone familiar with this? Any idea why it used to work but now >>>>>>> >>>>>> fails? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Any idea on how to get it to work with more than 10 iterations? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's potentially a nice illustration of the power of J - or of the >>>>>>> >>>>>> power >>> >>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>>> "power". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Devon McCormick, CFA >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> ---------- >>>>>>> For information about J forums see >>>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/ >>>>>> forums.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> Met vriendelijke groet, >>>> @@i = Arie Groeneveld >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>> >>> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- Devon McCormick, CFA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
