This also works
(_1+i.5)&{~^:(<4)
so you could have used the & conjunction. I'm not sure what you version was
actually doing, or how it got stuck in a loop.
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 9/7/16, 'Jon Hough' via Programming <[email protected]> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Greatest Increasing Subsequence
To: [email protected]
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2016, 2:26 PM
Someone more knowledgeable than I can
probably give a reason why this works, whereas yours
didn't:
{&(_1+i.5)^:(<4) 4
4 3 2 1
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 9/7/16, Xiao-Yong Jin <[email protected]>
wrote:
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Greatest Increasing
Subsequence
To: [email protected]
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2016, 12:53 PM
I’m trying to rewrite
lisM in a readable tacit form but hit something I didn’t
understand.
Supplying i.n to ^: works fine,
but <n does not work like the dictionary says.
Namely
(_1+i.5){~^:(i.4)4
produces
4 3 2 1, but
(_1+i.5){~^:(<4)4
exhausts all the memory with J804 and
J805beta.
The dictionary
says
If n is boxed it
must be an atom, and u^:(<m)
↔ u^:(i.m) y if
m is a non-negative integer
so the above two should be the same. What’s
going on here?
> On Sep
5, 2016, at 3:17 AM, 'Mike Day' via Programming
<[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> Thanks
Jon
>
> lisM
isn't really "my" version - I was just
translating the pseudo-code...
> I expect
-without checking! - that its advantage over lisl resides
in
avoiding the do-it-yourself binary search by using J's
built-in dyadic I. , albeit at the expense of an explicit
sorted array, which I called mx . I tried
limiting the I. search to only the first L items of mx,
but with no benefit, at least for the sizes I tried.
> The time taken to recover the result is
fairly trivial, so I don't suppose my use of
> |. x{~(p{~])^:(i.L) L{m
> is particularly interesting, but it
avoided that explicit while loop.
>
> Mike
>
> Please reply to [email protected].
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On 5 Sep 2016,
at 08:07, 'Jon Hough' via Programming <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>
>>
Just out of interest, I compared the various results.
>> I wrote a fully imperative version,
which uses in-place modification of the results array.
>>
>> I also wrote
a version that avoids any while / for loops (because I
wanted to avoid using them), and ended up putting
>> most of the logic in anonymous verbs.
Which is probably a big mistake because that gets very
slow.
Also barely readable.
>>
>>
NB.===========================================================================
>>
>> NB. Jon -
bizarre version. Uses anonymous verbs for most of the
logic.
>> NB. Slow and, uses huge amounts of
memory.
>> appendOrInsert=:(3 :
'insert max' [ 3 :
'(max=:<:#lst)[(min=:0)[val=:i{r[i=:y')`(3 :
'(lst=:lst,y)[prev=:(_1{lst) y} prev')@.(3 :
'(val>({:lst){r)[val=:y{r')
>> insert=:(3 : '(prev=:
((y-1){lst)i}prev)[(lst=: i y }lst)' ] ])@:(3 :
'mid'`(3 : 'min=: mid+1')@.(3 :
'(val>(mid{lst){r)[(mid=:<.(min+y)%2)')^:(0&<)^:_)
>>
>> lisJ =: 3 :
0
>> r=:y NB.
array
>>
[val=:0[max=:0[mid=:0[min=:0 NB. useful numbers
>> lst=:0 NB. list of
indices
>> prev=: (#y)#0
NB. previous indices
>> i=:0
NB. current index
>>
>> appendOrInsert"0 >: i.<: #
y NB. append the items, or insert them, into lst (and
update prev)
>> res=:''
>> ptr=: _1{lst
>>
(ptr&buildEx)^:(#lst) res
>> |.
res
>> )
>>
>> buildEx =: 4 : 0
>> res=:y,ptr{r
>>
ptr=: ptr{prev
>> res
>> )
>>
>>
>>
NB.===========================================================================
>>
>>
>> NB. Imperative version. just for
benchmarking
>> lisI =: 3 : 0
>> lst =: 0
>> r=:
y
>> parent=: (#y)#0
>> for_i.>:i.<:# r do.
>> if.((i{r) > ({: lst){r ) do.
>> parent=:(_1{lst) i}parent
>> lst =: lst, i
>>
else.
>> min=: 0
>> max =: <:#lst
>> while. min < max do.
>> mid =: <. (min + max) % 2
>> if. (i{r) > ((mid { lst{r)) do. min
=: mid + 1
>> else. max =: mid end.
>> end.
>> lst=:
(i) max} lst
>> parent=:
((max-1){lst)(i}) parent
>> end.
>> end.
>> res=:
''
>> ptr=: _1{lst
>> while. (# res) < # lst do.
>> res=:res,ptr{r
>> ptr=:ptr{parent
>> end.
>> I.
res
>> )
>>
>>
>>
>>
NB.===========================================================================
>>
>>
>> NB. Mike's version.
>>
>> lisM =: 3 :
0
>> n =.
#x =. y
>> if. 2>#x
do. x return. end. NB. special case empty
or singleton array
>> if. (-:/:~)x do.
~.x return. end. NB. special case sorted arrays
>> if. (-:\:~)x do. {.x return. end.
>> p =. n#0
>> NB. seed m with trailing _1 so that
final L (as in wiki algorithm) can be found
>> m =. n 0 }
_1#~>:n
>> NB. set up sorted mx,
with just the first element of x, so that I. works
>> mx =. ({.x) 1 }
(<:<./x), n#>:>./x
>>
for_i. i.n do.
>> xi =. i{x
>> lo =. mx I. xi
>> p =. (m{~<:lo) i
} p NB. better than appending to short p for larger x
>> m =. i lo } m
>> mx =. xi lo } mx
>> end.
>> |.
x{~(p{~])^:(i.L) m{~ L =. <: m i. _1
>> )
>>
>>
NB.===========================================================================
>>
>> NB.
Louis' version.
>> p=: ] , [
,&.> ] #~ (< {.&>) (= >./)@:*
#&>@]
>> e=: }:@>@(#~ (=
>./)@:(#&>))@>
>>
>> s=: [: e (<<_) p&.>/@,~
<"0
>> pi=: ] , [ ,&.>
] {~ (< {.&>) (i. >./)@:* #&>@]
>> lisL =: [: e (<<_)
pi&.>/@,~ <"0
NB. <------------- this one.
>>
>> f=: ((]
>: (-~ >./)) #&>) # ]
>>
>> P=: ] , [ ,&.> ] #~ (<
{.&>) (,@[ #^:_1 (= >./)@#) #&>@]
>> sp=: [: e (<<_) ({:@[ f {.@[ P
])&.>/@,~ (,&.> i.@#)
>>
>>
>>
>>
NB.===========================================================================
>>
>>
>> NB. Xiao's version with Raul's
modifications. Renamed verbs to avoid clashing.
>>
>> NB. dyads
>> exr=: (1 + {:@[ < ]) {. [ ;
,
>> hxr=: [: ; exr&.>
>>
>> NB.
monads
>> gxr=: (}.@] ;~ {.@] ; (hxr
{.))&>/
>> cxr=: ({::~ [: (i.
>./) #@>)@>@{.
>> dxr=:
(<_) ; ]
>> lisXR=: ([: cxr
gxr^:(#@(>@{:)))@dxr
>>
>>
NB.===========================================================================
>>
>> a=: 25 ?
25
>> timespacex 'lisI a'
>> timespacex 'lisJ a'
>> timespacex 'lisM a'
>> timespacex 'lisL a'
>> timespacex 'lisXR a' NB.
comment out for larger arrays,a.
>>
>> Playing around with various
arrays, it seems lisM is the most efficient in time and
space (more than the imperative version).
>> lisM and lisI can handle array larger
than 10000. The others struggle or give up with them.
>>
>>
>>
--------------------------------------------
>> On Sun, 9/4/16, 'Mike Day' via
Programming <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>
>>
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Greatest Increasing
Subsequence
>> To: [email protected]
>> Date: Sunday, September 4, 2016, 4:30
AM
>>
>> This
version of
>> "lis" is a bit
more J-like, especially in using
>>
dyadic I.
>> instead of the diy binary
search,
>> at the expense of a
slightly more
>> complicated set-up
for the m and mx arrays.
>>
>> lis =: 3 : 0
>>
n =. #x =. y
>> if. 2>#x do. x return.
end.
>> NB.
special case empty or singleton array
>> if. (-:/:~)x do. ~.x return. end. NB.
special
>> case sorted arrays
>> if. (-:\:~)x do. {.x
>> return. end.
>>
p =. n#0
>> NB.
seed m with trailing _1 so that final L (as
>> in wiki algorithm) can
>> be found
>> m
=. n 0 } _1#~>:n
>> NB. set up sorted mx, with just the
first
>> element of x, so that I.
works
>> mx =.
>> ({.x) 1 } (<:<./x),
n#>:>./x
>> for_i. i.n do.
>> xi =.
>> i{x
>> lo
=. mx I. xi
>> p
=. (m{~<:lo) i } p
>>
NB. better than appending to short p for
>> larger x
>>
m
>> =. i lo } m
>> mx =.
>> xi lo } mx
>>
end.
>> |.
>>
x{~(p{~])^:(i.L) m{~ L =. <: m i. _1
>> )
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On
02/09/2016 20:45, 'Mike
>>
Day' via Programming wrote:
>>>
Well,
>> assuming for now that it does
work, here's an attempt
>> at a
J
>>> version of
>> the pseudo-code listed at
>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_increasing_subsequence#Efficient_algorithms
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> lis
=: 3 : 0 NB. longest
>>
increasing subsequence
>>>
m
>> =.
0#~>:n =.
>>
#x =. y
>>>
L
>> =.
#p =. ''
>>> mx =. m{x NB. added this
vector
>> for better look-up of
x{~mid{m
>>> for_i.
>> i.n do.
>>> 'lo hi' =.
>> 1, L
>>>
xi =. i{x
>>>
while. lo <: hi do.
>>>
mid =. >.@-: lo +
hi
>> NB. if. xi
> x{~ mid{m do. NB. next
>> line a
bit better
>> if. xi >
mid{mx do.
>> lo =. >:
mid
>> else.
>>> hi =.
>> <: mid
>>> end.
>>> end.
>>> p
>> =. p, m{~<:lo
>>> m
>> =. i lo } m
>>> mx
>> =. xi lo } mx NB. update my
additional array
>>> L
=. L >. lo
>>> NB.
smoutput i; (x{.~ >:i);
>>
L{.m NB. diagnostic
>>
end.
>>> |. x{~(p{~])^:(i.L) L{m
>>> )
>>>
>>> It's reasonably fast on
?10000#5000 -
>> but possibly wrong!It
does
>>> fail on an
>> empty array.
>>
Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>>
On 02/09/2016 17:30, Raul Miller wrote:
>>>> It seems to me that the
>> "efficient algorithm"
documented on the
>>>> wikipedia
page would have an analogous
>> flaw.
It is performing binary
>> searches on
unsorted lists. That said, it does perform
>> correctly for
>>>> this example.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
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
>>
>>
>> ---
>> 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
