Hi everyone,
I just put out a new wiki update video that explains how you can join in the
effort to categorize the J wiki essays and help make them easier to navigate.
Here is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2hsnuxK79c
Included in the notes are links to the pages that you might
I must have lost the test for 'explicit definition running' during one
of the rewrites.
The original (6.02) seems to have it that xyuv are stacked by value when
an explicit definition is running. (Not mn). uv must be stacked by
value because they are passed as verb arguments into modifiers;
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 2:34 AM Elijah Stone wrote:
> Have you ever wanted good performance out of a large array of
> extended-precision integers (or, for that matter, rationals), where most of
> the integers involved would not have fit in a machine integer (magnitude
> approx. 2^63)?
Yes.
TL/DR version: no, I haven’t
I remember repeated squaring¹ of an integer matrix
where I had wanted to use extended for not losing
the exact precision. Don’t know for sure the results
mostly exceeded 2^63 but I think so.
Those matrices have not been all that “large” however
so maybe this is not
Only time I could think of was to have higher precision for Mandelbrot zooming
generation, where IEE 64 bit runs out of steam at some point when zooming right
in.
That is fairly intensive/interative though and I’m not sure you could get
really high performance out of such extended precision
Another strange question, this time to do with extended precision numbers.
Have you ever wanted good performance out of a large array of
extended-precision integers (or, for that matter, rationals), where most of
the integers involved would not have fit in a machine integer (magnitude
approx.
