Hi Vijay, Yes this does appear to be due to changes in the window driver syntax. "wh" is now "minwh" see http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Guides/Window%20Driver/Command%20Reference
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Vijay Lulla <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Raul. This standalone example doesn't work on Windows 7 too! > I followed your advice of removing the wh lines (replacing them with > wd was dumb on my part) and I can get the popup to show up on my > windows machine. I'll try it on my Mac in the evening. > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hmm... > > > > First off, note that 13!:8 signals an error, and its optional left > > argument is the text of the signaled error. > > > > Second, note that in this context, the sentence wd ::(''"_) 'qer' > > produces the result 'wh : command not found' and that was after the > > signaled instance, so it's likely that 'wd : command not found: wd' > > came from that same sentence. > > > > In other words, this looks like version drift in j8's implementation > > of wd along with something less than ideal in the error reporting > > mechanism (which should be indicating an error in the wh command when > > signalling that error - the dual appearance of 'wd' was misleading). > > > > And, if I strip out the two wh statements from the definition of > > GETURL, trying test'' again gives me a popup dialog. > > > > Unfortunately, there's no event handlers for the buttons on that > > popup, so it's inert, and shutting it down requires either shutting > > down J or running a sentence such as wd 'pclose' > > > > So you'll probably want to spend a little time reading the docs on wd. > > > > Currently, that seems to mean: > > > > J602: > > http://www.jsoftware.com/docs/help602/user/wd.htm > > http://www.jsoftware.com/docs/help602/user/wd_commands.htm > > > > J701: > > http://www.jsoftware.com/docs/help701/user/wd_commands.htm > > > > J8: > > http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Guides/Window%20Driver > > > > With the http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Guides/J8%20Standalone example > > apparently reflecting an early version of J8's wd. > > > > Perhaps it would be best to update the J8 Standalone page by removing > > the wh commands from that example? But of course there are other > > problems here which also deserve some attention. > > > > I hope this helps. > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > Raul > > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Vijay Lulla <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I tried the example listed on this page but I'm getting errors (I had > >> problems with wh so I replaced them with wd). Specifically, I get > >> > >> test '' > >> |wd : command not found: wd > >> | (wd ::(''"_)'qer') (13!:8)3 > >> > >> However, if I type wd on my ide session I get > >> wd > >> 3 : 0"1 > >> smoutput^:(1<Debugwd_jqtide_) y > >> 'r c l p n'=. wd1 (,y);(#,y);(,2);(,0) > >> select. r > >> case. 0 do. > >> EMPTY > >> case. _1 do. > >> memr p,0,n > >> case. _2 do. > >> _2 [\ <;._2 memr p,0,n > >> case. do. > >> if. d=. Debugwd_jqtide_ do. > >> smoutput^:(1=Debugwd_jqtide_) y > >> smoutput '**ERROR**' > >> Debugwd_jqtide_=: d [ e=. wd ::(''"_) 'qer' [ Debugwd_jqtide_=: 0 > >> smoutput e > >> e (13!:8) 3 > >> else. > >> (wd ::(''"_) 'qer') (13!:8) 3 > >> end. > >> end. > >> ) > >> > >> Details for J are: > >> JVERSION > >> Engine: j803/2014-10-19-11:11:11 > >> Library: 8.03.10 > >> Qt IDE: 1.3.1/5.3.2 > >> Platform: Darwin 64 > >> Installer: J803 install > >> InstallPath: /users/v/code/apl/j64-803 > >> > >> How do I resolve this error? > >> Thanks, > >> Vijay. > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:27 AM, chris burke <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> Has anyone built a standalone Mac app using JQt? > >>> > >>> Please see http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Guides/J8%20Standalone > >>> > >>> On 25 February 2015 at 06:09, Ian Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> @Henry -- thanks for your comments. Great! > >>>> > >>>> IMO this is just the sort of discussion I would like to see aired in > >>>> public. Though maybe do the more philosophical stuff in Chat? > >>>> Ideally I would like a summary of the J community's findings > >>>> documented on a Jwiki page for wider consumption. > >>>> > >>>> Further comments in-line… > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > We should take this off-group, but I'm replying in public because > if I'm > >>>> > wrong I would like to be corrected (and I'm only an amateur > >>>> statistician): > >>>> > >>>> That's exactly why I'm appealing to the forum too. > >>>> …To the annoyance of Real Statisticians, no doubt, because this must > >>>> be elementary stuff to them. > >>>> But Wikipedia -- which you'd expect to give simple answers to simple > >>>> questions which laypeople want to ask and need to ask -- approaches > >>>> the whole issue like a cat circling a bowl of hot porridge. > >>>> …If you're a layperson, just try working out how to score the "Lady > >>>> Tasting Tea" experiment from these pages… > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_test > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_distribution > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_trial > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_process > >>>> > >>>> As a Human Factors *engineer* -- I've been a professional *user* of > >>>> hypothesis-testing but an amateur Statistician. > >>>> …Or should that be Probabilist? Or even Epistemologist? > >>>> > >>>> Plus… now I'm retired, I'm getting rusty. > >>>> > >>>> Plus… I can't find precise enough documentation of JAL verb: > binomialprob. > >>>> Like… what's the semantics of the 3rd entry of (y) (styled "minimum > >>>> number of successes (s)") when y has only 3 entries? Can it be called > >>>> "minimum" any more? What I've concluded, after a bit of RTFC plus a > >>>> few idiot tests, is: > >>>> > >>>> (binomialprob 0.5,N,s) -: (binomialprob 0.5,N,s,N) > >>>> > >>>> Plus… has this doggie got 2 tails or just 1?? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > I think you are calling binomialprob correctly but I have some > >>>> objections to > >>>> > your use of the result. > >>>> > > >>>> > 1. I think your rejectH0 should use 1 - -: CONFIDENCE instead of > >>>> > 1-CONFIDENCE. > >>>> > > >>>> > The question is, "How likely is a result as weird as I am seeing, > >>>> assuming > >>>> > H0?" You should not bias "weird" by assuming that weird results > will be > >>>> > correct guesses - they could just as likely be incorrect guesses. > To > >>>> ensure > >>>> > that you reject 95% of the purely-chance deviations of a certain > size, > >>>> that > >>>> > 95% should be centered around the mean, not loaded toward one side. > >>>> > >>>> The "1-tail-or-2?" question -- or so I thought at first. > >>>> But it's deeper than that. It's much more serious. Serious enough to > >>>> be the key issue for me. > >>>> Which is precisely why I want to be *sure*. Sure enough to argue my > >>>> case to a determined layperson. Not merely make an inspired guess, as > >>>> most people would in an industrial situation (…knowing no one else > >>>> knows enough statistics to dare to challenge you!) > >>>> > >>>> What I understand @Henry to be saying is: should the 5% area under the > >>>> binomial distribution curve, which sets the pass/fail threshold, be > >>>> shared equally between both tails? Even if one tail happens to be in > >>>> fairyland? > >>>> > >>>> What I mean by that last remark is… > >>>> If The Lady Tasting Tea (TLTT) gets every trial *wrong*, then she's > >>>> *not* a monkey flipping a fair coin. It's a very biased coin! > >>>> She is sending a strong signal that she can be depended upon (…with X% > >>>> confidence) to make the wrong decision. > >>>> But I don't want to credit her this as evidence to support her claim > >>>> she can tell the difference (…at least, not tell it correctly). > >>>> This is what makes TLTT different from detecting a biased coin by > >>>> repeated tosses. > >>>> > >>>> What's to do? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > are there really people who think optical might be better than USB?? > >>>> > >>>> Oh-ho-ho! -- yes, they can still be found. > >>>> Hi-Fi buffs have not become extinct, and the (undead?) audio industry > >>>> still lives off their lifeblood. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > This is digital communication, no? 44K samples/sec, 2 channels, 20 > >>>> bits/sample, > >>>> > needs 2Mb/sec max out of 480Mb/sec rated USB speed... how could > that not > >>>> be > >>>> > enough? > >>>> > >>>> My interlocutor claims it's like the group was there, in his front > >>>> room, playing "just for him". > >>>> Now this guy is an intelligent chap, a developer of digital musical > >>>> instruments and a sound engineer as well as being an accomplished > >>>> musician. He sends me two MP3s (…yes, lossy MP3s!) to support his > >>>> claim. I drop these into Audacity and inspect the waveform at very > >>>> fine detail and I cannot for the life of me detect any difference. > >>>> So I know, as sure as God made little Apples, that I'm not going to > >>>> *hear* any difference. > >>>> But I've got lo-fi ears. In fact I'm half-deaf. Most of what I hear I > >>>> imagine. Mostly I get it right with people (I think…) But I don't know > >>>> what subliminal cues I'm using to do so. It's the "clever Hans" > >>>> effect. > >>>> > >>>> Maybe there are people who *can* tell the difference? But from my > >>>> pondering the figures, like you have, plus eyeballing the waveforms, > >>>> we're talking about magical superpowers here. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > It was ever thus... when I last looked at this sort of thing, 20 > years > >>>> back, > >>>> > the debate was whether big fat expensive cables would make a > difference. > >>>> > Bob Pease, a respected analog engineer, pointed out that it was > >>>> impossible, > >>>> > and James Randi had a bet that no one could discern $7000 cables > from > >>>> > ordinary speaker wire, but still the non-EEs have their > superstitions...] > >>>> > >>>> That's around the time my son was spending all his pocket-money on big > >>>> fat speaker cables and gold-plated jack-plugs. > >>>> Now he's teaching a Theory of Knowledge course (…yes, Epistemology!) > >>>> at a school in Hong Kong. He is greedy to get his hands on my little > >>>> program, and dispel a few lingering superstitions masquerading as > >>>> received wisdom about science. > >>>> > >>>> I want to package it up and send it to him, but I don't want to ask > >>>> him to install J on his Mac because not only will he grouse like heck > >>>> about fairy software but it will discourage him sharing the app with > >>>> his colleages, who share his sentiments. > >>>> > >>>> I know how to package up a standalone Mac app in J602, but J602 and my > >>>> packaged apps no longer work out-of-the-box on the Mac under Yosemite > >>>> (it's to do with 32-bit Java). Has anyone built a standalone Mac app > >>>> using JQt? If so I'd dearly love to see a monkey-see monkey-do page on > >>>> Jwiki. I'll write one myself, but it'll be a year before I can get > >>>> round to it. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > 2. Why 95%? I would fear that someone who is thinking about > optical > >>>> cable > >>>> > would rest uneasy with a 5-10% chance that they have not spent > enough on > >>>> > quality audio. Why not simply report, "A monkey with a coin to toss > >>>> would > >>>> > do as well as you y% of the time. Most researchers accept results > as > >>>> > significant only if the monkey would do as well less than 5% of the > time. > >>>> > Take more samples if you want less uncertainty." > >>>> > >>>> 95% is just for the sake of argument. 99% is there as an option. IMO > >>>> more options are neither necessary nor advisable. > >>>> The number of trials can be varied too. I'd like to offer 10 or 20 > >>>> trials. But 20 gets tedious, so I'm offering the option to give up > >>>> when you're bored and score the number you've done. > >>>> (This is an app for discretionary users -- we're not paying our > >>>> subjects $10 a session.) > >>>> > >>>> Anything under 7 trials fails to reject H0 however many successes. But > >>>> that's dependent on the value of CONFIDENCE and how it's to be > >>>> applied. But only to make a difference of 1 or maybe 2 trials. > >>>> I'm finding in practice that with such a low number of trials as 10, > >>>> anything short of 100% correct is statistical hairsplitting when it > >>>> comes to rejecting H0. With 20 trials there's more leeway: you're > >>>> allowed to get 3 or 4 wrong before the app rubbishes you. > >>>> > >>>> As for your wording: it's theoretically sound, but a trifle insulting. > >>>> Performing musicians have sizeable egos and wouldn't like to be rated > >>>> along with performing monkeys. :-) > >>>> > >>>> Ian > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> 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
