On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:16 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
wrote:
> thank you Kip and Raul,
>
> I settled on:
>
> booltest=: [: -. [: *./ 0 = ,
Oops, you are right, I inverted the logic you had asked for.
Looking at things this way, you could also use +./@:~:&0@,
Thanks,
--
Raul
---
thank you Kip and Raul,
I settled on:
booltest=: [: -. [: *./ 0 = ,
booltest booltest S:0 a:;a:
0
booltest booltest S:0 ] 3;a:
1
I'm not sure its a good general idea, but there is some clear use cases:
+:^:(booltest i.0) 2
2
(i.0) -: +:^:(i.0) 2
1
+:^:booltest 2
4
booltest =: +./@,
Henry Rich
On 5/11/2014 5:08 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
booltest =. (0<+./) *. 0<#
is designed to return 0 for 0 0 0 and i.0, and hopefully this:
booltest i.0 0, but:
(i.0) -: booltest i.0 0
1
the problem with all of this is:
3 : 'if. boolte
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:08 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
wrote:
> booltest =. (0<+./) *. 0<#
> is designed to return 0 for 0 0 0 and i.0, and hopefully this:
> booltest i.0 0, but:
>
> (i.0) -: booltest i.0 0
> 1
>
> the problem with all of this is:
>3 : 'if. booltest i. 0 0 do. 1
Consider
isboolean=: [: *./ , e. 0 1"_
from system file validate.ijs (I keep a copy and don't remember where I
found it).
isboolean 0 0 0
1
isboolean i.0
1
isboolean i. 0 0
1
Do you want [: -. isboolean ?
On Sunday, May 11, 2014, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <
programm...@jsoftw
booltest =. (0<+./) *. 0<#
is designed to return 0 for 0 0 0 and i.0, and hopefully this:
booltest i.0 0, but:
(i.0) -: booltest i.0 0
1
the problem with all of this is:
3 : 'if. booltest i. 0 0 do. 1 else. 0 end.' 4
1
so, it appears I need a 3 part test? How would I write it?
---
That's a good point. I do not actually need a slope on my horizontal
lines. I just need them to have at least one point that are not on the
x axis: So this works:
require'plot'
pd 'reset'
pd j./1 2 o./o.0.001*i.2002
pd (0.001*i:2002)*j./2 1 o. 22.5%180p_1
pd (_1.6+0.001*i.100)j.0.6-0.001*i.100
pd
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Michal Wallace
wrote:
> I agree, I definitely have better things to do with my time that deal with
> licensing issues, but it still needs to get done. :)
Maybe it does. The legal reasoning behind copyrights is a bit dubious,
but most legal reasoning is a bit dubi
Just figured out that
j./+. (_2+0.001*i.500)j.0
gets the job done as well and is probably a bit clearer, since you split the
complex components (imaginary is missing) and force the 5j0 result with j./ .
Cheers, bob
On May 11, 2014, at 9:03 AM, robert therriault wrote:
> I think that is pro
I think that is probably right Ian,
5j0 produces an integer result of 5 whereas 5j000.1 is a complex result.
You can force the whole array to revert to complex by appending a complex
number so:
_2j.1,(_2+0.001*i.500)j.0
would produce a vector of complex.
As I just discovered as i played wit
Is this a reappearance of the issue first discussed here? ...
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2011-July/023384.html
Except maybe in reverse: whereas the problem back then was (logically) real
data accidentally becoming complex, perhaps your horizontal arrow is
(logically) complex da
I agree, I definitely have better things to do with my time that deal with
licensing issues, but it still needs to get done. :)
And actually, since I want to spend as little time as possible dealing with
legal issues, I think it's better to just not use software where my rights
and obligations are
J source is available under GPL, but historically earlier versions
have been available under other, simpler licenses.
Note also that the GPL's self propagating aspect only applies if you
propagate the GPL'd code.
Finally, note that copyright needs to be taken with a few grains of
salt. Each creat
Are these two libraries considered part of J?
If so, do they share J's license?
If so, am I required to put any code that uses JDB under the GPL?
What about the rest of JAL?
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftwa
14 matches
Mail list logo
