Very nice, thank you for the improvements. I realised I don't need
state 0
for this particular problem, but the '1+' solution is good to know. I'm
also going to remember the '[X]' trick (crazy!).
On 11 Dec 2015, at 2:19, Raul Miller wrote:
I would be tempted to express your S like this:
SM=: 0 10#: 10* 1+ ".;._2 noun define
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 NB. initial
0.0 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2 NB. 0
0.2 1.0 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2 NB. 1
0.2 1.2 2.0 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2 NB. 2
0.2 1.2 2.2 3.0 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2 NB. 3
0.2 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.0 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2 NB. 4
0.2 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.0 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2 NB. 5
0.2 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.0 7.2 8.2 9.2 NB. 6
0.2 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.0 8.2 9.2 NB. 7
0.2 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.0 9.2 NB. 8
0.2 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.0 NB. 9
)
Changes:
I changed the variable name, so it might be easier to refer to a
specific way of generating the value.
I indented the script. I prefer indented scripts.
I got rid of that first row and the corresponding drop verb,
subtracted 1 from each literal value (so they correspond to your
system) and then add 1 after collecting the values.
I added some whitespace between the initial matrix formation and the
part that converts it to a rank 3 <next state, operation> array.
I also added an extra space before the NB. comments, to make them
stand out. I was also tempted to do this:
StM=: 0 10#: 10* 1+ ".;._2 noun define
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 NB. initial
[0] 0.0 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2
[1] 0.2 1.0 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2
[2] 0.2 1.2 2.0 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2
[3] 0.2 1.2 2.2 3.0 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2
[4] 0.2 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.0 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2
[5] 0.2 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.0 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2
[6] 0.2 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.0 7.2 8.2 9.2
[7] 0.2 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.0 8.2 9.2
[8] 0.2 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.0 9.2
[9] 0.2 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.0
)
But that might be taking things too far...
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Ryan Eckbo <ec...@cim.mcgill.ca>
wrote:
A previous advent answer got me thinking about state machines, so I
wrote
one for this problem. The extra initial state ruins the natural
mapping
between states and numbers, but I think it's unavoidable? Also
someone
could probably write a clever verb to generate the table.
NB. state machine -- can be confusing because rows/states 1,2,3,..
represent
numbers 0,1,2,..
S=: 0 10#: 10* ". }. [;._2 noun define
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.1 NB. initial
1.0 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2 10.2 NB. 0
1.2 2.0 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2 10.2 NB. 1
1.2 2.2 3.0 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2 10.2 NB. 2
1.2 2.2 3.2 4.0 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2 10.2 NB. 3
1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.0 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2 10.2 NB. 4
1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.0 7.2 8.2 9.2 10.2 NB. 5
1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.0 8.2 9.2 10.2 NB. 6
1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.0 9.2 10.2 NB. 7
1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.0 10.2 NB. 8
1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2 10.0 NB. 9
)
v=:[: ,@:((#,{.)every) (0;S)&;:
smoutput $ v^:40 Input=: 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 3
smoutput $ v^:50 Input
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
