x27;"_`(_1:)@.(_1 = *) , #:) _3
> _1 0 1
>
> #: inv _1 0 1
> _3
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Raul Miller
> To: Programming forum
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] twos complement
I noticed hfd / dfh have similar problems.
dfh hfd _17
239
On Fri, 11/13/15, Raul Miller wrote:
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] twos complement
To: "Programming forum"
Date: Friday, November 13, 2015, 8:03 AM
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 a
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:37 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
wrote:
> I don't know if your original post had a typo, but it reported 1 0 1.
1 0 1 would unambiguously be -3.
--
Raul
--
For information about J forums see http
4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] twos complement
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:45 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
wrote:
> Your version creates an encoding of _3 that is identical to 5. Which might
> be a problem when inverting.
I disagree.
sbits _3 5
1 1 0 1
0 1 0 1
The firs
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:45 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
wrote:
> Your version creates an encoding of _3 that is identical to 5. Which might
> be a problem when inverting.
I disagree.
sbits _3 5
1 1 0 1
0 1 0 1
The first bit is 1 for negative integers and 0 for positive integers.
Here is an alternative, that could seem more useful to me.
( ''"_`(_"_)@.(_1 = *) , #:@|) _3
_ 1 1
( ''"_`(_"_)@.(_1 = *) , #:@|) 3
1 1
Your version creates an encoding of _3 that is identical to 5. Which might be
a problem when inverting.
there is also this traditional encoding where 31 coul
I wrote:
> >:@<.@^. 1 >. >./@:|@,
Raul responded:
> Personally, I prefer the fork 1 + u over the perhaps more obvious >:@u
In general I agree with you, but in this case I like the sequence of inflected
arrows*:
>: @ <. @ ^.
It’d be cuter if >: happened to be spelled >. but I still like it
Personally, I prefer the fork 1 + u over the perhaps more obvious >:@u
Other than that, I kind of like your ndr.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Dan Bron wrote:
>
> Raul wrote:
>> twosC=: #:~ 2 #~ 1 + {:@$@#:
>
> The clause {:@$@#: does a lot of work (computationally speak
Raul wrote:
> twosC=: #:~ 2 #~ 1 + {:@$@#:
The clause {:@$@#: does a lot of work (computationally speaking, not
notationally speaking) to determine the number of bits required. There is a
cheaper way.
But the problem with “cheaper ways” is I always have to come up with them and
then teach J
