Excellent discussion. Very well produced. Well worth an hour to listen (maybe
twice).
- joey
> On 2021May 15, at 16:43, 'robert therriault' via Programming
> wrote:
>
> We have just completed the first episode of the Array Cast, a podcast all
> about the Array Programming languages. Hosted b
Ok...
You left out your example data for 'filer', but you gave enough detail
that I think I can see what you are trying to do.
That said, I think that I would split this up into two different routines:
One routine would deal with unpacking the "rows" (or "inverted
columns) from your data and ame
Hello--I was out of the house for much of today, so I haven't been
able to respond until now.
Thanks to all who responded with suggestions! Unfortunately, none of
them worked as is, probably because you're used to a different way of
approaching the problem and also because I probably should have
We have just completed the first episode of the Array Cast, a podcast all about
the Array Programming languages. Hosted by Conor Hoekstra, with co-hosts Adám
Brudzewsky (APL), Stephen Taylor (APL, q), and Bob Therriault (J), this
bi-weekly podcast will cover developments in the array programming
Depends what Harvey means by "values", I suppose.
I assumed he meant scalars. Otherwise my observation is pretty useless!
Cheers,
Mike
On 15/05/2021 19:01, Joey K Tuttle wrote:
I'm probably wrong, but when I first saw Harvey's request, I thought by amend
he might be visualizing something
I'm probably wrong, but when I first saw Harvey's request, I thought by amend
he might be visualizing something like -
(],%:) &.> <"0 ]i. 2 5
+-+-+-+-+---+
|0 0 |1 1 |2 1.414213562|3 1.732050808|4 2|
+-+-
Sorry... another early send!
You’ve already had some helpful, constructive, replies. All I’ve got to add is
to wonder why you’re working with boxed data if your data are as regular as
your example suggests.
If you really do have m rows of n boxed numeric values, why not just open it
up w
Sent from my iPad
> On 15 May 2021, at 04:13, HH PackRat wrote:
>
> Hello again!
>
> I'm thinking, for example, of a table of boxed data in its transposed
> horizontal position that has, say, 3 rows of, say, 1000 *boxed* values
> each. My goal is to amend *all* of the boxed values to their s
None has been talking about base 10 logs here.
The fact that scaling a logarithm is equivalent to using
a different base doesn’t mean changing the base mirrors
the semantics of every occurrence of (factor&*&^.)
Sometimes you just want to /scale this value up/.
And the base you’d come up with that
Hmm... why would we do that?
^. gives the natural log, if we wanted to work with base 10 logs we'd
be using 10&^. instead of a bare ^. and if we're treating logs as
percentages we'd probably be working with log10
(But what is the domain where we'd be wanting logs-as-percent?)
Thanks,
--
Raul
For completeness’ sake: for the scaled variant, you’d do
hh_constant =: 100
scaled_logs =: hh_constant&*&^. each original
Am 15.05.21 um 06:46 schrieb Raul Miller:
> logs=: ^. each original
--
--
mail written using NEO
neo-layout.org
---
11 matches
Mail list logo
