Oops, Dan Bron already posted this earlier,
which turns out to be his idiom.
Is it recorded anywhere?

It is similar to odometer:

http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Odometer

http://www.jsoftware.com/help/release/odom.htm
  #: i.@(*/) Improved

http://www.jsoftware.com/help/phrases/numbers_counting.htm
  m33=: odometer=: #: i.@(*/)            NB. All #s in radix y (odometer)


--- Dan Bron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Whenever I want a matrix of indicies I think first of the idiom  (#:i.)@:$  . 
>  So, in this case,
> I would write something along the lines of:
> 
>          (+/@ #&,~ ] = (+/@#: i.)@ $)  i. 3 4
>       6


--- Oleg Kobchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Here's yet another successively "better" answer
> working for any rank
> 
>    +/ , M * M = (+/@#: i.) $ M=. i.2 3 4
> 6
> 
> 
>    0j8 0":10 ts '+/ , M * M = +/&> {i.&.> $ M' [ M=. i.20 30 40
> 0.01522392 2194752
>    0j8 0":10 ts '+/ , M * M = (+/@#: i.) $ M'  [ M=. i.20 30 40
> 0.01446958 428352
> 
> --- Roger Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I might say:
> > 
> >    +/ , M * M = +/&> {i.&.> $M
> > 6
> > 
> > If I were under pressure (e.g. with Dijkstra in the audience
> > asking the question) and wanted to avoid any fumbling, 
> > I might say:
> > 
> >    +/ , M * M = (i.#M) +/ i.{:$M
> > 6
> > 
> > And then from that to successively "better" answers
> >    +/ , M * M = (#M) +/&i. {:$M
> >    +/ , M * M = +/&i./ $M
> >    +/ , M * M = +/&> {i.&.> $M
> > not forgetting to point out that the last expression 
> > works for M of any rank.
> > 
> > Dijkstra's question in 1963 was:  How would you represent a 
> > more complex operation, for example, the sum of all elements of 
> > a matrix which are equal to the sum of the corresponding row 
> > and column indices? 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Oleg Kobchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Wednesday, November 7, 2007 17:00
> > Subject: Re: [Jchat] why did Dijkstra dislike APL so much?
> > To: Chat forum <[email protected]>
> > 
> > > What is the standard J answer?
> > > 
> > >    ((= +/@#&, [) +/&i./@$)  i.3 4
> > > 6
> > >    (+/@#~&, (= +/&i./@$)) i.3 4
> > > 6
> > >    (+/@,@:* (= +/&i./@$)) i.3 4
> > > 6
> > >    +/,M*M=+/&i./$ M   =. i.3 4
> > > 6
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- Roger Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I don't know of any and I suspect Ken was too smart to respond.
> > > > 
> > > > There was an encounter between KEI and Dijkstra recorded in
> > > > http://keiapl.info/anec/#Dijkstra
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Richard Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Date: Wednesday, November 7, 2007 15:21
> > > > Subject: Re: [Jchat] why did Dijkstra dislike APL so much?
> > > > To: Chat forum <[email protected]>
> > > > 
> > > > > Is there any record, or even an anecdote, of KEI's
> > > > > own response to Dijkstra's comment?
> > > > > Richard Hill



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to