Intel® Core™2 CPU T9550
I understand that may be the problem.
All zeros is quite sane (much better than all ones).
Am 08.02.22 um 21:15 schrieb Henry Rich:
I get 0 0 0 0 0 as I expected. What's your CPU?
Henry Rich
On 2/8/2022 3:07 PM, Hauke Rehr wrote:
As I said, I haven’t been using it much.
Now I just tried
_. = 1 2 _. 4 5
1 1 1 1 1
… pardon?
I understand one could answer
0 0 1 0 0
or
0 0 _. 0 0
or
_. _. 1 _. _.
or (as preferred/proposed by me)
_. _. _. _. _.
but the answer current J gives is totally bogus (to me)
Agree/disagree? I don’t see a supporting rationale
for this behavior (but again, I don’t have experience
using it – maybe I just don’t know enough about it?)
Am 08.02.22 um 20:55 schrieb Hauke Rehr:
As long as it’s represented by different float values, that is.
It shouldn’t have been a float to start with in my opinion.
And I’d say
_. -: _.
_.
in keeping with what I had been writing before.
Am 08.02.22 um 20:52 schrieb Raul Miller:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 2:43 PM Hauke Rehr <hauke.r...@uni-jena.de>
wrote:
To be honest, I’m a bit confused by the stated difficulty.
The mathematical properties of _. (or, generally speaking,
indeterminate values) are rather confusing:
Since _. is not necessarily equal to _. it's difficult to reason about
arrays which contain this "value".
--
----------------------
mail written using NEO
neo-layout.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
