Thank you all for the comments!
Raul wrote: "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."
Which circumstances are you thinking of?
The rounding to zero is beneficial in all the cases mentioned in the comments,
and I fail to construct examples where it is not.
(^ j. 1p1) NB. confusing
_1j1.22465e_16
f0(^ j. 1p1) NB. clear
_1
f0 9e99j1e6
9e99
Thanks.
Bo.
Den søndag den 21. februar 2021 07.32.51 CET skrev Joey K Tuttle
<[email protected]>:
Ahh for the good ole days ;-)
JVERSION
Binary: j601binc_linux32
Library: j601libc
Help: j601hlpc
Engine: j601/2006-11-17/17:05
^ o.0j1
_1
^j.1p1
_1
But time marches on and things change ...
JVERSION
Installer: j602a_linux32.sh
Engine: j602/2008-03-03/16:45
Library: 6.02.023
^ o. 0j1
_1j1.22461e_16
(^j.1p1)
_1j1.22461e_16
JVERSION
Engine: j903/j64avx2/darwin
Beta-e: commercial/2021-02-16T18:34:19
Library: 9.03.01
Platform: Darwin 64
Installer: J903 install
InstallPath: /applications/j903
Contact: www.jsoftware.com
^j.1p1
_1j1.224646799e_16
NB. but even today the formatted result is satisfying.
33j30 ": ^ o. 0j1
_1.000000000000000000000000000000
> On 2021Feb 20, at 11:12, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
