Thanks for your feedback; that is reassuring to me. This is a more
comprehensive comparison:
assert X (2 -:/\ (([: <. %)~) ; ([: <. %~) ; (<.@%~) ; (<.@(%~)) ;
(<.@:%~) ; (<.@:(%~))) Y
11 stp noun define
X (([: <. %)~) Y
X ( [: <. % ~) Y
X ( <.@ % ~) Y
X ( <.@(% ~)) Y
X ( <.@:% ~) Y
X ( <.@:(%~)) Y
)
┌──────────────────┬───────┬─────────────┬──────────┐
│Sentence │Space │Time │Product │
├──────────────────┼───────┼─────────────┼──────────┤
│X (([: <. %)~) Y│8797184│0.0285709797 │251344.165│
├──────────────────┼───────┼─────────────┼──────────┤
│X ( [: <. % ~) Y│8797184│0.0268573186 │236268.774│
├──────────────────┼───────┼─────────────┼──────────┤
│X ( <.@ % ~) Y│4219392│0.00446664877│18846.5421│
├──────────────────┼───────┼─────────────┼──────────┤
│X ( <.@(% ~)) Y│8797184│0.0247148887 │217421.423│
├──────────────────┼───────┼─────────────┼──────────┤
│X ( <.@:% ~) Y│4219392│0.00405533641│17111.054 │
├──────────────────┼───────┼─────────────┼──────────┤
│X ( <.@:(%~)) Y│8797184│0.02544385 │223834.23 │
└──────────────────┴───────┴─────────────┴──────────┘
This shows, if I am not mistaken, that <.@:% ~ dominates its counterpart
([: <. %)~ .
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've not seen such a case, where [: u v is fast but not u@:v .
>
> Henry Rich
>
>
> On 1/20/2016 6:09 PM, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
>
>> The experiment was for the specific performance of [: u v vs u @: v for
>> the
>> given u, v, X and Y. However, there are other instances as well, for
>> example, the reference [2]. I do not recall seen any instance of such
>> discrepancy in performance the other way around; that is when [: u v
>> clearly dominates u @: v but I would be grateful if you or anyone else
>> points me in that direction.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> The experiment you made is insufficient for the purpose.
>>>
>>> Usually when u@:v is fast, ([: u v) gets the same treatment. Since
>>> /:@:/: is fast, I expected ([: /: /:) to be also. (It's not,
>>> surprisingly).
>>>
>>> /:@:/: is handled same as /:@/: since they are equivalent.
>>>
>>> <.@% is fast, but there is no reason to expect ([: <. %~) to be fast, for
>>> two reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. They have different rank. But <.@:% is also fast, so it turns out
>>> this is not the difference.
>>>
>>> 2. Since <.@:% is fast, so will <.@:%~ be, and normally ([: <. %) too;
>>> but ([: <. %~) is totally different. It is equivalent to <.@:(%~) which
>>> is NOT fast.
>>>
>>> I have not been able to figure out what the verbs f are for which <.@f is
>>> fast.
>>>
>>> Henry Rich
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/20/2016 8:31 AM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
>>>
>>> does [:/:/: not also benefit from special code?
>>>> I doubt it does,
>>>>
>>>> timespacex '123 ([: <. %~) 210293810238120398120398120398x + i.1000'
>>>> 0.00241248 1.27885e6
>>>> timespacex '123 ( <.@%~) 210293810238120398120398120398x + i.1000'
>>>> 0.000590399 836992
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Mike Day <[email protected]>
>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 7:50 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] A Different Less?
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't advocating /:/: . I prefer using @ but the 13 : ' .... '
>>>> had produced [:/:/: . Conicidentally, Linda appears to
>>>> favour the [:u v idiom to u@v .
>>>>
>>>> So, for Linda's benefit, does [:/:/: not also benefit from
>>>> special code?
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> On 20/01/2016 12:29, Henry Rich wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Note: /:@/: y is better than /: /: y (special code)
>>>>>
>>>>> Henry Rich
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/20/2016 5:45 AM, Mike Day wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe simpler but it requires evaluation of /:/:y twice, whereas
>>>>>> Raul's oc manages to make rank the right hand argument to (] - {) .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This tacitisation might be what you're looking for:
>>>>>> 13 :'r-(i.~ y){ r =./:/:y'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i.~ (] - {) [: /: /:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It reproduces oc except for using [: rather than @ !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20/01/2016 10:27, Linda A Alvord wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A simpler f:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> f=: 13 :'(/:/:y)-(i.~ y){/:/:y'
>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>> ([: /: /:) - i.~ { [: /: /:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linda
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Programming [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Linda A Alvord
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 3:15 AM
>>>>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] A Different Less?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's another way to write the code that so far is the fastest. How
>>>>>>> does it compare?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A=:'abcabbe'
>>>>>>> B=:'babe'
>>>>>>> f=: 13 :'(/:/:y)-(y i. y){/:/:y'
>>>>>>> g=: 13 :'((f x)>: (( ~.y)i.x){(#/.~y),0: y)#x'
>>>>>>> A g B
>>>>>>> cab
>>>>>>> f
>>>>>>> ([: /: /:) - i.~ { [: /: /:
>>>>>>> g
>>>>>>> [ #~ ([: f [) >: ([ i.~ [: ~. ]) { ([: #/.~ ]) , [: 0: ]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linda
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Programming [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Raul Miller
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 12:51 PM
>>>>>>> To: Programming forum
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] A Different Less?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A bugfixed version of my previous implementation (it broke when x -.
>>>>>>> y was empty) performs approximately the same, for me:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cle=: ,~ #~ i.@#@,~ e. [: ; (2*#/.~@]) (}.&.>~ #@[ {. ])~ (]i.,~)
>>>>>>> </. i.@#@,~
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I say approximately, because timing variations mean that when I test
>>>>>>> on the same data, sometimes it's faster and sometimes it's slower
>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> oc=: i.~ (] - {) /:@/:
>>>>>>> cless =: [ #~ oc@:[ >: (i.~~.) { (#/.~,0:)@]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That said, Boss's implementation is clearly more concise...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Raul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Marshall Lochbaum
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a very cool solution, and much quicker than the one based on
>>>>>>>> progressive index-of. Instead of taking the occurrence count of
>>>>>>>> both x
>>>>>>>> and y, it just takes the count for x and compares it to the total
>>>>>>>> number of occurrences in y, given by (#/.~).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's a comparison of the two methods. It turns out in the version
>>>>>>>> based on progressive index-of, the desired verb can be obtained just
>>>>>>>> from replacing (i.) with (-.) and then using the first column of the
>>>>>>>> result to select from x, so I've used that version.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NB. Shared verb for occurrence count
>>>>>>>> oc=: i.~ (] - {) /:@/:
>>>>>>>> NB. Simplified form of what Roger and I posted
>>>>>>>> cless1 =: [ {~ [: {."1 #@[ ({. -.&(,.oc) }.) [ i. ,
>>>>>>>> NB. Tacitized R.E. Boss solution
>>>>>>>> cless2 =: [ #~ oc@:[ >: (i.~~.) { (#/.~,0:)@]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NB. test data
>>>>>>>> 'a b' =. 500 ({.;~}.) +&(1e5 ?@$ 26)&.(a.&i.) 'a'
>>>>>>>> 10 (6!:2) 'a cless1 b'
>>>>>>>> 0.0178952
>>>>>>>> 10 (6!:2) 'a cless2 b'
>>>>>>>> 0.0063745
>>>>>>>> a (cless1 -: cless2) b
>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To summarize, here's the fastest solution so far:
>>>>>>>> oc=: i.~ (] - {) /:@/:
>>>>>>>> cless =: [ #~ oc@:[ >: (i.~~.) { (#/.~,0:)@]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Marshall
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 03:49:46PM +0000, R.E. Boss wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm getting old, but still remember my solution, improved by Hui:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2004-May/017503.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 'abcabbe' strikeb2 'babe'
>>>>>>>>> cab
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Curious how it performs compared to the other solutions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> R.E. Boss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: Programming [mailto:
>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]]
>>>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of June Kim (???)
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: maandag 18 januari 2016 5:19
>>>>>>>>>> To: Programming forum <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Jprogramming] A Different Less?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am looking for a verb(cless) that does something similar to
>>>>>>>>>> Less(-.) but counting the elimination, for example:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 'abcabbe' -. 'abbe'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> c
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 'abcabbe' cless 'babe' NB. get rid of y letters counting
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> occurrences
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 'cab'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is easier to define such a verb recursively: 'abcabbe' cless
>>>>>>>>>> 'babe'
>>>>>>>>>> equald to 'e' cless~ 'b' cless~ 'a' cless~ 'b' cless~ 'abcabbe'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think recursive definition isn't a usual J-ic approach.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How would you implement such a verb elegantly(with which I mean
>>>>>>>>>> short)?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> June
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> --- 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> For information about J forums see
>>>>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
