No, the code is still there, but it doesn't do much - gives a little bit
better precision on large arguments IIRC.
Henry Rich
On 2/20/2021 2:10 PM, Roger Hui wrote:
https://www.jsoftware.com/papers/APLQA.htm#worldmathsday
* ○ 0j1 × 2e9 + a ÷ 2
1 0J1 ¯1 0J¯1
1 0J1 ¯1 0J¯1
1 0J1 ¯1 0J¯1
(Basically, ^ o. 0j1 * 2e9 + a % 2 where a=: 3 4$i.12)
I thought I did the same in J, predating what's done in Dyalog APL.
According to https://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/special.htm, there
is supposed to be special code for ^@o., but apparently it got lost
somewhere, sometime.
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 9:45 AM Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 12:46 AM María Magdalena Mixuhca
<[email protected]> wrote:
I find this lack of beauty surprisingly disturbing:
(^ j. 1p1)
_1j1.22465e_16
Ok... so...
I think what we want here is a handling of
exponentials/transcendentals so that necessarily minimal deviations
from pi are smoothly handled so that we get zeros when we expect them.
A cost, though, of that kind of approach, is that it would lure us
into a false sense of security, leaving us even more upset in other
circumstances.
Still... it's an interesting challenge.
Thanks,
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 AVG.
https://www.avg.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
