I don't know why >/y is not good. If the value changes by changing either last of first item, it should involve every byte.
Next closest [EMAIL PROTECTED] (4*#q) %~ 2.8e9 * 6!:2 '>./q' NB. raw 1.57819 actually +/y for ints with float result is faster CPB (8*#q) %~ 2.8e9 * 6!:2 '+/q' 0.857189 datatype +/q floating Compare [EMAIL PROTECTED] (4*#r) %~ 2.8e9 * 6!:2 '+/r' 1.6156 p=. 1e7#0.5 (8*#p) %~ 2.8e9 * 6!:2 '+/p' 1.40882 --- Roger Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Similar reply as for +./y . And calibration gives > wrong answer. > > Try +/boolean , not calibrated. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Oleg Kobchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:26 am > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Cycles per Byte > > > --- Roger Hui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > +./y does not depend on the value of every byte > > > in the argument. Others of that ilk are > > > (> i. 1:) (> i. 0:) etc. > > > > In a subsequent message I had put 1 at the very end, > > and it checks all bytes. Time was slower but <1 > > calibrated. > > > > Another one, > > > > (#y) %~ 1.45e9 * 6!:2 '>/y' NB. calibrated P4-2.8GHz > > 0.00198489 > > (#y) %~ 2.8e9 * 6!:2 '>/y' NB. raw > > 0.00375467 > > > > Explanation: > > > > >/0 1 > > 0 > > >/1 0 > > 1 > > >/0 1 0 > > 0 > > >/1 1 0 > > 0 > > >/1 0 0 > > 1 > > >/1 1 0 0 > > 0 > > >/1 0 0 0 > > 1 > > >/1 1 0 0 > > 0 > > >/1 0 0 1 > > 1 > > >/0 0 0 1 > > 0 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
