I also struggled a bit to find out how to enable the J Keyboard on my HTC One S running JellyBean. In the end I discovered that once the keyboard comes up in the J application, I can drag down the bar at the top of the window to show the option to "Select Input Method".
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Wim de Lange <wimdela...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not about the speed, wihc gives 0.013 om my HTC Sensation, but how to > enable the J Keyboard. Did what whas in the help file, but if I tap long on > the console, I get the menu to Cut, Copy and Paste. No keyboard selection > as described. I'm running Android 4. Is the readme describing behaviour > from android 2.6? > > Groetjes, > Wim > > > 2012/9/13 Roger Hui <rogerhui.can...@gmail.com> > >> 0. One of the goals of the linear representation (which you were using to >> generate the multi-digit display of 0.1&) is that if you re-enter the line >> you get the original noun/verb/whatever back. For some numbers many digits >> may be required, esp. if the code is a bit off regarding how many digits >> are required for the round-trip. The J interpreter depends on the C >> formatting of numbers, so it would not surprise me if the code is in fact a >> bit off in that regard. >> >> 1. The %. implementation does not take different paths that are dependent >> on the values in a non-singular matrix. (Part of what makes it >> algorithmically interesting :-). Therefore the time required should be the >> same for different random matrices. Of course, unless you have ripped out >> most of the stuff from your machine, that time would be impacted by e-mail >> arriving, your moving the mouse, the browser doing whatever, your >> anti-virus acting paranoid, whatever, whatever, ... >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Joey K Tuttle <j...@qued.com> wrote: >> >> > I agree with your point, but the "benchmark" has always included >> > generating the matrix and that is typically a very small part of the time >> > and should be relatively stable (although I suppose inverting the same >> > "random" matrix over and over would remove some variation). Your >> suggestion >> > of using a left argument for 6!:2 is the best way to reduce (or at lease >> > smooth out) variability. >> > >> > In repeating these expressions on my iPad, I discovered something I was >> > never aware of before... I accidentally tacked a & onto the end of the >> > expression - that has a very interesting (and actually useful) result. >> But >> > because it is a pain to email selections from the iPad, these were done >> on >> > an iMac i7 - >> > >> > 100 (6!:2) '%. 50 50 ?@$ 1000' >> > 0.00080055 >> > 100 (6!:2) '%. 50 50 ?@$ 1000'& >> > 0.000807989999999999967& >> > 0.1 >> > 0.1 >> > 0.1& >> > 0.100000000000000006& >> > 0j40 ": 0.1 >> > 0.**100000000000000005551115123125**7827021182 >> > >> > I never realized that tacking on the & displays the number which might be >> > useful to see the actual floating point representation. May be about as >> > silly as inverting random matrices, but also amusing... >> > >> > >> > On 2012/09/12 14:51 , Devon McCormick wrote: >> > >> >> Part of the reason for the variability is that you're generating a new >> >> matrix each time and including the generation in your timing. >> >> Something like this should give a more stable result: >> >> >> >> 6!:2 '%.mat' [ mat=. 50 50?.@$1000 >> >> >> >> Also, this form better allows you to run multiple timings to get a >> >> more stable number, e.g.: >> >> >> >> (10) 6!:2 '%.mat' >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Robert Cyr <robert....@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Results of the posted benchmark vary quie a bit: on this Nexus 7, >> >>> >> >>> 6!:2'%.50 50 ?.@$1000' >> >>> 0.043118 >> >>> >> >>> 6!:2'%.50 50 ?.@$1000' >> >>> 0.033788 >> >>> >> >>> 6!:2'%.50 50 ?.@$1000' >> >>> 0.030006 >> >>> >> >>> 6!:2'%.50 50 ?.@$1000' >> >>> 0.034632 >> >>> >> >>> 6!:2'%.50 50 ?.@$1000' >> >>> 0.023798 >> >>> >> >>> And with a larger sample, >> >>> >> >>> 6!:2'%.500 500 ?.@$1000' >> >>> 7.91767 >> >>> >> >>> 6!:2'%.500 500 ?.@$1000' >> >>> 8.07115 >> >>> >> >>> 6!:2'%.500 500 ?.@$1000' >> >>> 7.94837 >> >>> >> >>> About twice the time of the iPad >> >>> On Sep 9, 2012 6:53 AM, "bill lam" <bbill....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> From google, iphone 4 uses cortex-a8 and that cpu uses vfp-lite which >> >>>> is 10 times slower than a regular vfp used in cortex-a9. >> >>>> >> >>>> Сбт, 08 Сен 2012, Joey K Tuttle писал(а): >> >>>> >> >>>>> That's a nice speedup! It will be interesting to try the iPhone 5. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I'm curious if anyone has a timing from a generation 3 iPad, it may >> >>>>> well be faster than my iPad 2. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 2012/09/08 06:30 , J. Patrick Harrington wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The iPhone 4S is faster: 5.6 sec >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012, Joey K Tuttle wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> iPhone 4 - 18.2 seconds >> >>>>>>> iPad 2 - 4.6 seconds >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 2012/09/07 19:48 , bill lam wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I am curious to know what are the timings for iphone and ipad. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> It is around 6 to 11 seconds on android depending on CPU. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Срд, 05 Сен 2012, Paul Jackson писал(а): >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Some time ago, you and Roger were talking about timings on >> >>>>>>>>> %. 500 500 ?@$ 1000 >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I believe Roger said he had timings from the IPSA days. He also >> >>>>>>>>> said the >> >>>>>>>>> matix was considerably smaller. Did you ever get those early >> >>>>>>>>> machine >> >>>>>>>>> timings? >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Paul >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >> > ---------- >> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/**forums.htm >> <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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
