Removing 0 = was my suggestion. I've not taken the time yet to see why this was a bug, but I apologize.
Thanks, -- Raul On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Michal D. <michal.dobrog...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Linda, you are a bug finding machine! c11 is simpler than the original > and is more correct than the latest version I put up on pastebin. I > introduced a bug by removing the 0= from this although I shouldn't have. > > Cheers, > > Mike > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Linda Alvord <lindaalv...@verizon.net>wrote: > >> Next, isn't c1 the same as c11? >> >> I make silly little scripts like this and I run them in a new Jconsole and >> then do T '' lots of times until I'm pretty sure they agree. >> >> T=: 3 : 0 >> n=:1+?6 >> d=:1+?6 >> ]D=:(n%2) > (?]) n$d >> ]E=:?(n,d)$2 >> ]c1=:0= ? A=:(2$d)$(>. d%2) >> ]c11=:?(d,d)$2 >> F=:($D)-:$E >> G=:($c1)-:$c11 >> F,G >> ) >> >> T '' >> >> >> Linda >> >> -----Original Mesesageh >> From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com >> [mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftrware.com] On Behalf Of Linda >> Alvord >> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 5:12 AM >> To: programm...@jsoftware.com >> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Arc consistency in J >> >> I just began to ponder this thread. Do you think E is the same as D? >> th >> D=. (n%2) > (?]) n$d >> E=. ?(n,d)$2 >> >> Linda >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com >> [mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Michal D. >> Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 11:26 PM >> To: programm...@jsoftware.com >> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Arc consistency in J >> >> > >> variables. In other words, if we specify the constraint x < y it >> > >> looks like either x1 < x2 or x2 < x1 is sufficient to satisfy arc >> > >> consistency. In other words, i think we should always use the >> > >> symmetric closure of the constraint. >> > > >> > >> Does this sound valid to you? >> > > >> > > Unfortunately not. There are no values that can satisfy x1<x2 and >> x2<x1. >> > > If this was the case all csps would have no solutions >> > >> > I meant x1<x2 OR x2<x1 >> > >> > So symmetric closure was the wrong term for me to use. >> > >> > But I think we want to be using intersection of the relationship with >> > its inverse. >> > >> > Does that sound right to you? >> > >> >> Sorry I missed the or. Unfortunately not, I mean you can have a constraint >> like that if you want but you don't have to have to in general. I think >> we're dwelling on an implementation detail. They (wikipedia) must just >> have >> the < constraint propagating both ways. >> >> My brain is fried but I did hack together an ugly search procedure. You >> can >> try it out on a sudoku puzzle if you want. For some reason I couldn't >> generate it using the code you gave me. http://pastebin.com/2zPB4DBA >> >> Maybe we can update the printf docs to say: >> load 'format/printf' >> http://www.jsoftware.com/help/jforc/input_and_output.htm >> >> Cheers, >> >> Mike >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
