Hooks with one or more ~'s always throw me for a loop. How about: 5 ($&1@[ 6!:2 ]) '+/?~1000'
6!:9 has lower overhead than 6!:2 and would be better for this purpose, I think. (6!:9 '') -~ 6!:9 '' 20 (6!:9 '') -~ 6!:9 '' 11 (6!:9 '') -~ 6!:9 '' 18 _10 [\ 2 -~/\ 6!:9"1 i.101 0 15 11 11 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 10 11 9 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 10 11 10 10 10 9 11 10 9 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 10 10 11 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 10 The number of counter ticks per second: 6!:8 '' 3.57955e6 On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Brian Schott <[email protected]> wrote: >> This thread makes me think that the dyadic form of 6!:2 would be >> better if it produced the individual times and not the average of the >> times because then the mean and the standard deviation or some other >> measure of dispersion could be extracted directly from the results. > > Or you could instead take advantage of how the primitive is designed > to get this information. For example: > > 5 (6!:2~ #&1)~ '+/?~1000' > 0.0327572 0.000112649 0.000100492 9.96819e_5 0.000145876 > > -- > 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
