Hi all !
Maybe we need a nounification operation? An operation that creates a
noun from a verb? We could then create arrays of these nounified verbs?
To execute them we would then need a verbification operation? Nounify
and verbify? Possibly, in Jx, there could be a need to in equivalent
ways
some practical issues for this,
I have not measured the performance benefit.
sure foreigns to convert to/from gerund-boxed entity.
but from jx, `. could be used to make "boxed entities"
I used boxed entities instead of boxed verbs because of modifiers.
Note the issues/differences between ar an
It looks like we have two good solutions to find a fractional part:
v
_2.375 _5.84615 _11.4 13.0028 13.0014 13 12.9986
fp1=. * * 1||NB. Martin
fp2 =. (1&| - 0&>) NB. Bo & Raul collaboration.
fp1 v
_0.375 _0.846154 _0.4 0.0027933 0.00139082 0 0.998621
fp2 v
_0.375 _0
+"0/~ i.3
0 1 2
1 2 3
2 3 4
+"_1/~ i.3
0 2 4
+"0 b.0
0 0 0
+"_1 b.0
_ _ _
I understand that this is dictionary compliant:
"In general, each cell of x is applied to the entire of y . Thus x u/ y is
equivalent to x u"(lu,_) y where lu is the left rank of u ."
+"_1 b.0
_ _ _
So u"_
I remembered I had problem with this and ended up specifying both left and
right rank.
JVERSION
Engine: j806/j64avx/darwin
Beta-4: commercial/2017-06-27T12:55:06
Library: 8.06.03
Platform: Darwin 64
Installer: J806 install
InstallPath: /applications/j64-806
Contact: www.jsoftware.com
+"_1 _
Yes I guess it could be replaced by
u”_1”_1 _
I would guess it is the intended behavior as b.0 reports
infinite rank, but that is what I find strange.
Louis
> On 07 Aug 2017, at 16:47, Xiao-Yong Jin wrote:
>
> I remembered I had problem with this and ended up specifying both left and
> right
Was it meant like that..?
fp2 0.3 _0.3 3 _3
0.3 _0.3 0 _1
-M
At 2017-08-07 20:38, you wrote:
It looks like we have two good solutions to find a fractional part:
v
_2.375 _5.84615 _11.4 13.0028 13.0014 13 12.9986
fp1=. * * 1||NB. Martin
fp2 =. (1&| - 0&>) NB. Bo & Raul
The same observations go for all operators which depend on their argument’s
rank, such as @, &, or &. :
<@(,"_1)~ i.3
┌───┐
│0 0│
│1 1│
│2 2│
└───┘
Louis
> On 07 Aug 2017, at 16:55, Louis de Forcrand wrote:
>
> Yes I guess it could be replaced by
>
> u”_1”_1 _
>
> I would guess it is the i
Ooops! it looks like fp2 isn't so good after all.
Skip
Skip Cave
Cave Consulting LLC
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Martin Kreuzer wrote:
> Was it meant like that..?
>
>fp2 0.3 _0.3 3 _3
> 0.3 _0.3 0 _1
>
> -M
>
>
> At 2017-08-07 20:38, you wrote:
>
> It looks like we have two good soluti
Reread the dictionary and I learned the correct interpretation of a negative
rank.
A negative rank is complementary: u"(-r) y is equivalent to u"(0>.(#$y)-r)"_
y .
I had the misconception that it should be u"(0>.(#$y)-r) y .
> On Aug 7, 2017, at 4:02 PM, Louis de Forcrand wrote:
>
> The s
I'm not sure what Raul had in mind when he suggested an offset of _1
to mark the position of negatives (maybe that would help further
calculations or decisions on the data set, I do not have the
experience to judge that); at this stage it only works with integers
but not with floats ...
-M
At
When I suggested an offset of _1 I did not understand the full
specification, and was fishing for clues.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Martin Kreuzer wrote:
> I'm not sure what Raul had in mind when he suggested an offset of _1 to mark
> the position of negatives (maybe that
The rank of +"_1 is infinite because the derived verb has to see the
full ranks of its arguments to figure out what rank to use for the
inner verb.
In other words, -"_1 in -"_1 i.3 3 has an effective rank of 1, but in
-"_ i.3 it has an effective rank of 0.
Since it can't know what rank to use unt
I see. So negative ranks are sort of placeholders, and are replaced by
positive (effective) ranks internally during evaluation?
Because it could just announce its rank to be negative, and not actually
calculate the effective rank until it is really needed (a lazier effective rank
evaluation if you
No joke was intended, undefined names are regarded as verbs in the context
of adverbs and conjunctions. Why? Because it allows for writing verbs in a
top-down fashion if one so desires. (Bill, I know you know most of this,
if not all; but I am putting some context for the potential benefit member
Negative rank is a convention - it means the rank is relative to the
noun rank. I'm not sure what a rank less than 0 would mean otherwise.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Louis de Forcrand wrote:
> I see. So negative ranks are sort of placeholders, and are replaced by
> positiv
I would say neither gerundYN or isgerund is correct, they should report value
error. Even J interpreter itself does not know if undefined name is a verb or
not, J can only assume it is a verb but it can be wrong since unbound name is
free to be assigned to any value. Your question should be -- s
@.] should be used, not @.0 :
v
|value error: v
v123
|value error: v123
v`''@.]
v@.]
v123`''@.]
v123@.]
I still like the @.] test.
Louis
> On 07 Aug 2017, at 19:26, Jose Mario Quintana
> wrote:
>
> No joke was intended, undefined names are regarded as verbs in the context
> of ad
Raul, picking up your suggestion,
take the fractional part if positive number,
mark by _1 if negative (sort of a mask?)
v=. 2.25 _8.11 16 _3
using Agenda
(1&|)`(*) @. (0&>"0) v
0.25 _1 0 _1
fp3=. 1&|`*@.(0&>"0)
fp3 v
0.25 _1 0 _1
-M
At 2017-08-07 22:26, Raul Miller wrote:
When
signum is zero tolerant but that may be what you intended.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Martin Kreuzer wrote:
> Raul, picking up your suggestion,
>
> take the fractional part if positive number,
> mark by _1 if negative (sort of a mask?)
>
>v=. 2.25 _8.11 16 _3
>
> using Agenda
>
>(1&|
20 matches
Mail list logo
