I see, I thought you were trying to avoid the issue of a potential
premature convergence of the form (u^:v^:_) which sometimes can cause
havoc.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That was for debugging, to prevent having to shut down J if I messed up.
>
> For real use I'd probably use _ instead of 99.
>
> Then again, for real use I'd probably not use this at all.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <
> jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I would use a number a lot larger than 99, just in case.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > It's easy to fix fact 0:
> > >
> > > Recursion=:1 :0
> > > '`if else test next'=: m
> > > [: if/@(else@{: _1} ])f. (, next@{:)^:(test@{:)^:99 f.
> > > )
> > >
> > > However, the problem with Fib is that the recursion concept I used
> > expects
> > > a different kind of gerund than the kind you implemented.
> > >
> > > So I would either need to change the gerund or I would need to rebuild
> my
> > > adverb based on the requirements of that example.
> > >
> > > Also, as
> http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/Fibonacci%20Sequencepoints
> > > out, there are a lot of ways of computing the fibonacci sequence.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure which to prefer.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Raul
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <
> > > jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >simplicity. Simplicity is a virtue?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On designing econometric models one of the best advised: "Keep it
> > > > Sophisticatedly Simple." I think his advice also applies to
> > programming;
> > > > actually that is the primary reason why I prefer J versus other
> > > > conventional programming languages and even to APL (at least the
> decade
> > > old
> > > > versions of APL that I used to know). Moreover, writing only tacitly
> > > keeps
> > > > the list of concepts simple in my mind.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To stress the main point of my initial message; the case I am making
> > for
> > > > recursion without $: is, for instance, the fixed tacit (or
> otherwise)
> > > > implementation of the adverb sna. The (atomic representation of the)
> > > > Recursion adverb is an interesting testing argument taken by sna.
> > > > Nevertheless,
> > > > I posed the implementation of Recursion as a puzzle and yours and any
> > > other
> > > > variants are very welcome.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Recursion=:1 :0
> > > >
> > > > '`if else test next'=. m
> > > >
> > > > [: (if else^:(-.@test))/f. (, next@{:)^:(test@{:)^:_ f.
> > > >
> > > > )
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > fact=. *`1:`*`<: Recursion
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > fact 5
> > > >
> > > > 120
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So far so good. Unfortunately,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > fact 0
> > > >
> > > > 0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fib=. >&1`(i.@>:)`(] , +/@(_2&{.)@])`<: Recursion
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fib 7
> > > >
> > > > |domain error: Fib
> > > >
> > > > | Fib 7
> > > >
> > > > |[-15]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you fix your interesting (primitive recursive) version?
> > > >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 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
