Or, you could do something like this:
paren=:3 :0
y=.":y
if.1<#;:y do. y=.'(',y,')' end.
;:y
)
quoted=: 1 :0
:
;:inv(paren x),(paren m),;:": y
)
'g' quoted/19 29 59 79 89 109 119 139 149 179 199
19 g 29 g 59 g 79 g 89 g 109 g 119 g 139 g 149 g 179 g 199
Now you have a line you can
To answer "There's got to be an easier way to list the interim values of
insert"
g/\.19 29 59 79 89 109 119 139 149 179 199
4 5 6 12 12 7 4 2 6 1 199
To see what \. does we can use <
<\.i.5
┌─┬───┬─┬───┬─┐
│0 1 2 3 4│1 2 3 4│2 3 4│3 4│4│
└─┴───┴─┴───┴─┘
\
Right , either way I am fine and ready for a cyclical rank :)
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 18, 2017, at 7:53 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
> wrote:
>
> m"_ if m is a gerund to be applied cyclically only makes sense if the rank is
> less than _?
>
>
>
>
>
m"_ if m is a gerund to be applied cyclically only makes sense if the rank is
less than _?
From: Jose Mario Quintana
To: Programming forum
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 7:39 PM
Subject:
0 12 10 #: 10 * y
Or just 0 12 #: y, since the result gets displayed as a decimal...
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Skip Cave wrote:
> How do you get feet, inches, and tenths of inches?
>
> Skip Cave
> Cave Consulting LLC
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at
Why not add the cyclic gerund functionality to u`:n?
We've got a plethora of unassigned values for n, and this would not
introduce any new inconsistency that could break existing code.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
On further consideration and or what is worth, I second your proposal.
I would like to suggest to go even further and make no exceptions even for
the case when n is _ . Why? First, because I do not like
inconsistencies and the main point of changing " is to make consistent
with other
In your reply, you quoted Bo's answer which seems to me to provide the
answer to your question.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Skip Cave wrote:
> How do you get feet, inches, and tenths of inches?
>
> Skip Cave
> Cave Consulting LLC
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:31
How do you get feet, inches, and tenths of inches?
Skip Cave
Cave Consulting LLC
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:31 PM, 'Bo Jacoby' via Programming <
programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
> 100 12#:166.7 NB. feet and inches
> 13 10.7
> 100 12 16#:16*166.7 NB. feet and inces and sixteenth inches
> 13 10
So does Roger's function work on the larger list? Let's see:
(4 : '13|x*y') / 10 # 19 29 59 79 89 109 119 139 149 179 199
9
That looks like it does. Let's check with extended precision:
(4 : '13|x*y') / 10 # 19 29 59 79 89 109 119 139 149 179 199x
9
So Roger's approach works without
On 18/09/2017, Raul Miller wrote:
> Well, first, I'd ask why you would want to do that.
Well, it just somehow quite naturally appeared in my code...
(which, of course, could be reordered to avoid the construct)
> But I'd go with something like x u"1~/~ y
> (And note that
Roger said:
But if the list were longer:
13 | */ 13 | 10 # 19 29 59 79 89 109 119 139 149 179 199
0
Wow! Yes I see the problem. It would be really nice if J would output a
warning when a calculation exceeds the precision limits. I'm sure this
would probably slow down all computations, so
Yes...
Well, first, I'd ask why you would want to do that.
But I'd go with something like x u"1~/~ y
(And note that y u~"1/ x is something like x u"1~/~ y ...).
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Rudolf Sykora wrote:
> On 18/09/2017, Raul Miller
On 18/09/2017, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'd use x u"1/ y
nice, thanks.
What about if it were the other way round, i.e.
u"1 _"_ 1
?
Following what I learnt from you, I now know I can shorten
to
u"1"_ 1
.
(One could also perhaps use some modification
of u"1/~ ...)
Thanks
100 12#:166.7 NB. feet and inches
13 10.7
100 12 16#:16*166.7 NB. feet and inces and sixteenth inches
13 10 11.2
Den 19:10 mandag den 18. september 2017 skrev Brian Schott
:
My car is 166.7 inches long according to the specs.
Car cover coverages are measured in
Your solution works only because the list isn't too long, and the initial
13| (same as 13 |/) made them all small enough that you can do the */
without losing precision. But if the list were longer:
13 | */ 13 | 10 # 19 29 59 79 89 109 119 139 149 179 199
0
If it makes it more
Yes, one of the Quora answer posts for this challenge pointed this out as
well, so I tried that approach. Not being too competent with the use of &
@, I tried:
13|*/13|/19 29 59 79 89 109 119 139 149 179 199
4
I got the answer, but I need a course on the use of @ and & in order to
tighten
I had two dates for my checking. One when I wrote the check or deposit and
the date that it cleared. I was able to match them to the penny. It was
nice to be able to sort by cleared date and I could do a binary search to
find where I entered something wrong when balancing.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at
Xiao-Yong and Raul,
Thanks for your answers, which are simple and direct.
I made the mistake at the outset of trying the following 2 erroneous
attempts which pulled me away from #: .
12 12#:166.7
1 10.7
12#:166.7
10.7
--
This particular problem can be solved without resort to extended
precision. Use multiplication mod 13, that is, find the remainder at each
step rather than waiting until the end:
13&|@* / 19 29 59 79 89 109 119 139 149 179 199
4
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Skip Cave
I'd use x u"1/ y
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Rudolf Sykora wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have found myself writing a pattern like this quite often:
>
> x u"_ 1"1 _ y
>
> Is there a more J-idiomatic way to write this, or would you
> define a custum
I'd have done this:
0 12 16#:16*166.7
13 10 11.2
13' 10" and slightly over 11/16.
Similar to Xiao-Yong's approach, though slightly different.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
> My car is 166.7 inches long according to the
(_ 12 16#:16&*) 166.7
13 10 11.2
(_ 12 16,%16)#:166.7
13 10 11 0.0125
> On Sep 18, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
>
> My car is 166.7 inches long according to the specs.
> Car cover coverages are measured in feet and inches.
>
> To compute how many feet
My car is 166.7 inches long according to the specs.
Car cover coverages are measured in feet and inches.
To compute how many feet and inches long my car is I used the following
calculations.
166.7%12
13.8917
(-<.)166.7%12
0.891667
12x *(-<.)166.7%12 NB. the x is not required, imo
10.7
Hello,
I have found myself writing a pattern like this quite often:
x u"_ 1"1 _ y
Is there a more J-idiomatic way to write this, or would you
define a custum adverb?
(It's basically a table of all 1-cell combinations...)
Thanks
Ruda
People posting problems on Quora are typically expecting an explicit
algebraic formula solution to their problem, though they never explicitly
state that requirement. The posted Quora problems often involve very large
numbers, which the poster expects will prevent solutions from using a
If I had to do that, I'd do it at "reporting time". (Possibly cached,
if that turns out to take too long.)
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Don Guinn wrote:
> I went to one cent and went to a lot of trouble to make sure I rounded the
> same way that banks
I went to one cent and went to a lot of trouble to make sure I rounded the
same way that banks did.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Raul Miller wrote:
> That depends on what I am doing.
>
> In professional contexts: I often work with 100 = 1 dollar for
> archive
So, when you work with money, do you have the number 1 equal to one dollar
or one cent? Ten cents is not exact in floating point if you units are
dollars.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 5:25 AM, Raul Miller wrote:
> There are other cases, always.
>
> Of course, there are
There are other cases, always.
Of course, there are examples like bayesian numbers, complex numbers,
and quaternions where we indeed generally use integers or floating
point numbers under the covers. But we do have high precision rational
numbers for cases where that's necessary.
Anyways, math
That has been characteristic of Project Euler but Quora Challenges are
new to me.
Anyways, if the problem expects to answers work with precisions well
beyond measurable limits, that should be stated as a part of the
problem.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Skip Cave
Hi all!
I think either we work with integers or with floating point. We use
floating point when we have non-countable and integers when we have
countable data. Non countable data is things like measurable quantities
in engineering. Countable data is when we count a certain number of
things,
I tested with this "primes" function in Nial, but even my first attempt
at generating primes in J, The PrimesUntil verb, is considerably better.
At 1 primes Nial got in trouble. At 2 primes Nial crashed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nial#Explanation
/Erling
Den 2017-09-17 kl.
ECPP is the best algorithm if you want proof of a correct result for any
large number? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_curve_primality
/Erling
Den 2017-09-17 kl. 22:30, skrev Roger Hui:
In theory Miller-Rabin can give incorrect result, but the probability of
that is lower than the
34 matches
Mail list logo