Here's what I get from J602:
   9223372036854775808
9.22337e18
   3!:0]9223372036854775808
8

Here's what I get from J64-602:
   9223372036854775808
9223372036854775807
   3!:0]9223372036854775808
4

Thanks,

-- 
Raul


On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 4:28 PM, 'Bo Jacoby' via Programming <
[email protected]> wrote:

> I get this using j602. It seems to be correct.
>
>    2^63
> 9.22337e18
>
>
>    2^63x
> 9223372036854775808
>
>
> 9223372036854775808
> 9.22337e18
>
>
> 9223372036854775808x
> 9223372036854775808
>
>
>
>
>
> Den 21:23 mandag den 26. maj 2014 skrev Raul Miller <[email protected]
> >:
>
>
> >
> >
> >I'm not sure that execution time is a significant bottleneck here.
> >
> >If it is, though, I don't think you can get much faster than:
> >   10000 timespacex '9223372036854775807'
> >7.18584e_7 1408
> >
> >That said, Henry's approach is about the same speed:
> >   10000 timespacex '33 b.~_1'
> >7.46583e_7 1920
> >
> >And if what you want is platform specific (different on 32 bit J from 64
> >bit J), Henry's approach would probably be the right way.
> >
> >That said, I still like this:
> >   10000 timespacex '#.63#1'
> >7.71728e_7 1664
> >
> >Maybe I'm just a sucker for polynomial representations?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >--
> >Raul
> >
> >
> >
> >On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 3:07 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <
> >[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> The 2 fastest versions I've found on my computer:
> >>
> >>    100 timespacex '( + <: ) */ +:@:*:^:2 ] 1024 16'
> >> 3.4112e_6 4352
> >>
> >>    100 timespacex '(+ <:) +:^:14 *:^:4 ] 8 '
> >> 5.5744e_6 3072
> >>
> >>
> >> The &. x: is obviously much more generic and practical for generating
> >> "medium" sized numbers.
> >>
> >>    100 timespacex '   2 <: &. x:@^ 63 '
> >> 8.064e_6 5632
> >>
> >>
> >> The importance of all this, btw, is that there is a significant size
> >> penalty to storing extended integers, as well as a time/space
> compromise in
> >> working with them.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <[email protected]>
> >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> >> Cc:
> >> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:35:14 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] 2^63
> >>
> >> Might this be the fastest way of getting 2^63-1, without x: ?
> >>
> >>    (<: + ] ) +:^:14 *:^:4 ] 8
> >> 9223372036854775807
> >>
> >> worth noting:
> >>
> >>    +:^:62 ] 2
> >> 9.22337e18
> >>    +:^:61 ] 2
> >> 4611686018427387904
> >>
> >>    2 <: &. x:@^ 63
> >> 9223372036854775807
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> actually this is probably best:
> >>
> >>    2 <: &. x:@^ 63
> >> 9223372036854775807
> >>    3!:0 ] 2 <: &. x:@^ 63
> >> 4
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Raul Miller <[email protected]>
> >> To: Programming forum <[email protected]>
> >> Cc:
> >> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:02:01 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] 2^63
> >>
> >> Here's an interesting bug (I can't call this kind of issue a feature if
> >> it's not documented in the dictionary, can I?):
> >>
> >>    9223372036854775809
> >> 9223372036854775807
> >>
> >> (And that's probably more important than the "using ^" issue.)
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Raul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:55 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <
> >> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > is there a way to get ^ to make a 64bit number without it being
> extended
> >> > precision?  I guess an efficient alternative to ^ if that is not
> >> possible:
> >> >
> >> >    2^63
> >> > 9.22337e18
> >> >    2^63x
> >> > 9223372036854775808
> >> >    9223372036854775808
> >> > 9223372036854775807
> >> >
> >> > Note that the last line is probably a problem. The answer is the
> largest
> >> > non extended integer, but still unwelcome change from the input.
> >> >
> >> >    9223372036854775808-1
> >> > 9223372036854775806
> >> >    9223372036854775809-1
> >> > 9223372036854775806
> >> >
> >> > I guess this works
> >> >
> >> >    (<: + ] ) 4611686018427387904
> >> >  NB. 2^62x
> >> > 9223372036854775807
> >> >
> >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to