Hello again,
I’m still confused about modifiers.
Please tell me where to find more information
that might aid in understanding how this works:
I have an adverb A and a verb V but sometimes
x and y for the derived verb for A are known
prior to the verb, so I want to write a modifier
something
be equivalent to
([ u~ V)
On Wednesday, February 26, 2020, 06:20:45 p.m. EST, Hauke Rehr
wrote:
Hello again,
I’m still confused about modifiers.
Please tell me where to find more information
that might aid in understanding how this works:
I have an adverb A and a verb V but sometimes
x and y
talking about copying: I don’t remember having read about
whether J is copy-on-write or when copying will take place
is there a defined set of verbs that does copying or does
that take place at a different level?
Am 04.03.20 um 15:29 schrieb Raul Miller:
Yes.
The general case, implementated in
, ' u~ ' , ": m V n)
)
On Thursday, February 27, 2020, 03:04:57 a.m. EST, Hauke Rehr
wrote:
What I want is rather something (C here) callable like
noun1 C noun2
resulting in the adverb
noun1 u~
What you say I knew except if the evaluation
rules changed in j9 and this is new
:
The description of : in NuVoc gives the most detail I know of. Have you
read it?
Henry Rich
On 2/26/2020 6:20 PM, Hauke Rehr wrote:
Hello again,
I’m still confused about modifiers.
Please tell me where to find more information
that might aid in understanding how this works:
I have an adverb
nts that are usefully
changed prior to load is to have an init_verb called at the end of the script
that reassigns (tacit) verbs based on constant values.
On Sunday, February 16, 2020, 09:02:47 a.m. EST, Hauke Rehr
wrote:
I don’t have any concrete example that’s actually
expensive in ter
:22 schrieb bill lam:
Why do you think there will be major savings of
computational resources? Can you give a concrete
example?
Sun, 16 Feb 2020, Hauke Rehr написал(а):
Hello everybody,
I recently stumbled upon some at least
for me counterintuitive (read: puzzling) behaviour:
In a verb like (&
avings of computational
resources so I’d have expected J to do this.
could anyone tell me why this is different from verbs?
kind regards,
Hauke Rehr
(Jena, Germany)
--
--
mail written using NEO
neo-layo
- an expression would be required
3. J doesn't know about named constants; it knows only nouns. m and n
could be megabytes in size. Installing them into a sentence would be
inefficient.
Henry Rich
On 2/16/2020 3:05 AM, Hauke Rehr wrote:
Hello everybody,
I recently stumbled upon some at least
for me
That’s true for the most simple cases only.
That way one gets a display of a value rather than of a definition.
Consider these definitions and “definition query”
(as I said, it’s simply a display of value):
adv =: 1 : 'm&+'
v =: 5 adv
v
5&+
In more complicated situations you would
In other words, there is no such thing as a “column vector.”
It’s a matrix with “dimension“ 2.
A better way to phrase this is “has 2 axes” or, in J lingo,
as Don Guinn said, it’s about ranks.
You said
rvec =: 1 2 3
rather than
rvec =: 1 3 $ 1 2 3
but with cvec you told j to build a matrix aka
Where is L:. documented? I can’t find it in the Vocabulary.
Am 07.04.20 um 22:59 schrieb Skip Cave:
That's it!
I wanted a combination of partitioning and indexing, and L: does the job. I'll
have to do some studying to understand L:.
r
9 8 6 1 2 2 2 6 8 7
5 4 8 4 2 7 9 1 4 1
4 3 3 7 7 0 6 7
at 4:02 PM Hauke Rehr wrote:
Where is L:. documented? I can’t find it in the Vocabulary.
Am 07.04.20 um 22:59 schrieb Skip Cave:
That's it!
I wanted a combination of partitioning and indexing, and L: does the
job. I'll
have to do some studying to understand L:.
r
9 8 6 1 2 2 2 6 8 7
5 4 8 4 2
Hi all,
I just started reading
https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Doc/Articles/Play202
and tried to make up a solution
rehrperm =: 3 : 'if.1>:y do.,:y$0 else.,/ (i.y) ,"0 1 (rehrperm <:y) {"2
1 (-."1 0)~ i.y end.'
I didn’t use if.do.end. nor did I care for
calls with y < 1 but changed this
You say you’re using Ubuntu; the next LTS release is due on Thursday.
Maybe wait for the release upgrade and try again?
Am 19.04.20 um 23:15 schrieb Phil Hanna:
I have installed J901 on my Linux Ubuntu 18.04 machine. The J console
works OK, but I can't get JQT to run.
saspeh@u25nv:~$ sudo
release prematurely for my whole machine
just to see if there was a bug with the old one.
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 5:27 PM Hauke Rehr wrote:
You say you’re using Ubuntu; the next LTS release is due on Thursday.
Maybe wait for the release upgrade and try again?
Am 19.04.20 um 23:15 schrieb Phil
I just looked up what it looks like on my machine:
~/j64-807$ ll bin/
-rwxrwxr-x 1 […] 2,7M […] libjqt.so
obviously not a symlink
don’t know if things have changed for v9.01 though
Am 19.04.20 um 23:15 schrieb Phil Hanna:
I have installed J901 on my Linux Ubuntu 18.04 machine. The J console
You’re right, I should stop posting
unrelated/unhelpful messages.
Thanks
Am 20.04.20 um 00:16 schrieb Raul Miller:
(1) Which release are you running?
(2) This thread belongs on the general forum, not on the programming
forum (which I have bcc'd in case you forgot to subscribe to the
general
In my opinion, “do” and “undo” is not the idea/concept of &.
and doesn’t get across what it actually does.
&. is very helpful in a plethora of use cases
it is like transform, work in transformed space, transform back
(like working with conjugate matrices or in fourier space, e.g.)
From my
If that’s what was intended, I’d rather write
;/6 (? $~) 55
(adhering to the DRY principle).
Am 13.03.20 um 16:22 schrieb Raul Miller:
Here's another approach:
;/6?255#55
Here, I decided that "extended fifty times" really meant that you
wanted another 50 copies of that expression
That’s what ;/6 (? $~) 55 (amoung others) does.
We wondered mainly how many repetitions you actually wanted to get.
There were 5 in your example and you wanted something extended 50 times.
None knew what it was you wanted extended and if it was to be counted.
Did you intend to get
• 50
• 51
•
When the values are nonnegative, their ratios are, too.
There must be something different happening if there are negative values.
Am 03.04.20 um 03:29 schrieb HH PackRat:
On 4/2/20, Raul Miller wrote:
One other thing -- after sleeping on this, I realized I had two
conflicting views about
could one as easily have a lilypond file created instead?
since converting from MusicXML usually doesn’t work that well
else I’d rather re-implement the music generation in scheme
(guile) in order to use it in lilypond directly
Am 29.03.20 um 05:14 schrieb Thomas McGuire:
I have a couple of
as for the trailing 5s:
i: needs to fill with trailing 0s so you intermediately get
_2 _1 0 1 2
_2 0 2 0 0
adding 5 leads to your result
I once wrote this (here adjusted to Ruda’s example)
in case stepping is used really frequently
throughout the code — but there is too much
(two
the step is calculated rather than given
you’d need to preprocess the argument(s)
Am 02.04.20 um 01:26 schrieb Fraser Jackson:
No one has mentioned the simple function
load 'stats/base'
steps 5 19 14
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
steps 5 9 8
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
steps _3 10 13
_3
Actually, I’m a little bit confused as well:
I thought I understood it but obviously didn’t
so I tried redoing the diagram but with one
set of arrows altered.
Am I right these should be different or do I
misinterprete the way atop is meant to work?
thanks
Am 29.03.20 um 03:36 schrieb ethiejiesa
, Hauke Rehr wrote:
Actually, I’m a little bit confused as well:
I thought I understood it but obviously didn’t
so I tried redoing the diagram but with one
set of arrows altered.
Am I right these should be different or do I
misinterprete the way atop is meant to work?
thanks
Am 29.03.20 um 03:36
5 p: ] or 5:
the "totient"
Not what Skip is looking for, though?
On 24/04/2020 20:14, Hauke Rehr wrote:
does counting suffice? then that would be φ which I’m sure
someone must have written code for already
Am 24.04.20 um 21:09 schrieb Skip Cave:
I have used
using builtin q:
I get correct results using
/:~ ~.@, ((*/)@#"1~ #:@:i.@(2&^)@#) 1,q: 4711
1 7 673 4711
/:~ ~.@, ((*/)@#"1~ #:@:i.@(2&^)@#) 1,q: 42
1 2 3 6 7 14 21 42
less brute force but it’s just a first attempt
Am 24.04.20 um 20:28 schrieb Skip Cave:
I want to find all the integer
I now have an answer for the number of results:
*/ >: +/"1 (=/~ ~.) q: 4711
4
*/ >: +/"1 (=/~ ~.) q: 42
8
I hesitate using =/~ (it’s actually deprecated)
but I wouldn’t know a better way in this case
Am 24.04.20 um 21:09 schrieb Skip Cave:
I have used the wrong terminology. I want to
does counting suffice? then that would be φ which I’m sure
someone must have written code for already
Am 24.04.20 um 21:09 schrieb Skip Cave:
I have used the wrong terminology. I want to find all the positive integer
*divisors* of an integer n (not just primes) which includes 1 and the
integer.
in my opinion, this is the way to do this properly
• you won’t have to repeat too much in the future (upgrades)
• you won’t have copies which is always a bad idea
after all, that’s one of the use cases profile scripts are meant for
Am 23.04.20 um 13:17 schrieb chris burke:
In addition to Ian's
but in that case a boolean left argument will
give a partition with at most two elements
in general you need n different values
for partitioning into n sets this way
Am 24.04.20 um 23:45 schrieb Devon McCormick:
I must have been thinking of "key", e.g.
1 0 1 0 wrote:
I seem to recall
Or, starting from your first approach,
teaching where and why it failed:
1 2 7 ,/"1 0 ] 30 40
you want ,/ to work on a list on the left
and individual atoms on the right
" (rank) does that. It tells the verb
(,/ in this case) to apply to lists (1)
on the left and atoms (0) on the right.
Thus
oking up ~ as well
Am 13.05.20 um 10:35 schrieb Hauke Rehr:
Or, starting from your first approach,
teaching where and why it failed:
1 2 7 ,/"1 0 ] 30 40
you want ,/ to work on a list on the left
and individual atoms on the right
" (rank) does that. It tells the verb
(,/ in this
First, Skip already mentioned that. His posts are about J’s behaviour.
Second, your reasoning is flawed.
*/ 3 ^ i.4 includes non-square factors and is a perfect square.
Think about prime numbers and their distribution,
and you’ll get a valid answer.
Am 18.05.20 um 03:22 schrieb 'Pascal Jasmin'
.
On Sunday, May 17, 2020, 09:32:04 p.m. EDT, Hauke Rehr
wrote:
First, Skip already mentioned that. His posts are about J’s behaviour.
Second, your reasoning is flawed.
*/ 3 ^ i.4 includes non-square factors and is a perfect square.
Think about prime numbers and their distribution,
and you’ll get
my 2¢
the result is absolutely correct;
both Henry Rich and Devon McCormick showed why
If you’re dealing with values with two decimal places
everywhere, either apply rounding after each operation,
or (better imho) work on 100-fold values and divide by
100 in the very last step of your
In case you are willing to accept labelling it a problem.
As I mentioned by altering the thread’s subject, yes,
this ain’t a bug. But there may be an opportunity for
improvement without sacrifice. Or so do I think.
Am 16.05.20 um 00:49 schrieb 'Michael Day' via Programming:
Not a new "bug" -
oing on here... maybe a built in epsilon
which is independent of comparison tolerance?
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 6:53 PM Hauke Rehr wrote:
In case you are willing to accept labelling it a problem.
As I mentioned by altering the thread’s subject, yes,
this ain’t a bug. But there
The more I think about it, the more I think +. could actually
be amoung those arithmetic primitives that would benefit from
using 0&= without doing much harm if I don’t miss something.
Still otoh:
The decimal system is an arbitrary way of representing numbers.
There’s no point in having 0.142
999758
0.01000655 4.3399 0.02000466
0.00999758 0.02000466 4.4404
I'm not quite sure what's going on here... maybe a built in epsilon
which is independent of comparison tolerance?
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 6:53 PM Hauke Rehr
wro
numbers as well
without being given any kind of reference
(or else you haven’t grasped the concept of gcd yet)
Am 16.05.20 um 11:30 schrieb bill lam:
Do you have any reference that gcd is applicable beyond the context of
inregers?
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 5:19 PM Hauke Rehr wrote:
wrong.
first
_16 8.88178e_16 8.88178e_16
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 5:51 AM Hauke Rehr wrote:
sorry, I was not sufficiently precise about my example
I meant to talk about atomic a only
if $ a is empty, then
+./ (, -) a
will work
Thanks for pointing out the lack of precision.
Am 16.05.20 u
sorry, I was not sufficiently precise about my example
I meant to talk about atomic a only
if $ a is empty, then
+./ (, -) a
will work
Thanks for pointing out the lack of precision.
Am 16.05.20 um 11:46 schrieb Raul Miller:
I was talking about the implementation.
These are different results:
I always thought the 'word.' control structures were
meant to be c syntax lookalikes in order to tell you
beware! you’re not writing idiomatic J here
that’s why I thought they were chosen that way
and if so, I’d agree
Am 22.05.20 um 00:05 schrieb Henry Rich:
Rejected. I agree that 'continue'
Hello all,
some time ago I wrote three lines in reference to
the Perlish JAPH meme; I’ve been unsatisfied with
the approach taken so I never made it part of my
email signature.
Here it is:
'e t' =: '0$0';' 5@>? ,9:?30= 5 3,.60='
v =: (+/ - *:@{:) ,".@(']&'&,)@,._1 t
<@(v&+&.(a.));._1
Hello Stefan,
I guess by your name and email adress that you’re from austria
so you could read and understand German.
I took lecture notes last year in a Numerics course here at the
university of Jena and implemented nearly all of the algorithms
using J, with coloured J lines interspersed with
Say u is your current processing
and v tells what axes are meant to look like in the result.
Then I think
(v@$ $ u) data
does the trick already. Looks like a simple conjunction to me.
If otoh you don’t know v, J won’t either.
Am 21.08.20 um 02:40 schrieb Henry Rich:
I don't think it fits into
… and maybe you want to use
rab2 =: -.&' '
Am 21.08.20 um 20:02 schrieb x...@xn--wxa.land:
]m=:<\ *: >: i.15
(sep @ ". @ (,&'x') @ rab @ ": @ ,)each m
Appends a 'x' after each number string, so it will get interpreted as an extended
number. Otherwise big numbers get converted to floats, e.g.
I’d start with something like
<\ *: >:i.15
Am 21.08.20 um 19:46 schrieb Skip Cave:
Also, is there a better way to generate increasing length sets of a vector?
--
--
mail written using NEO
neo-layout.org
I’d want to get rid of one @ in the chain
at the expense of introducing rank
<@( [: "."0 @ ; <@":"0)\ *: >: i. 15
Am 21.08.20 um 20:22 schrieb x...@xn--wxa.land:
… and depending on what you want, there might be a better approach: parse the
numbers, raze the strings, itemize the characters,
I’ve been amoung that “distinguished list” as well until
I guessed the way it worked but privately considered
it bad style so I’m glad this change has been made
Since it’s so simple a fix and in my opinion
does improve consistency, I personally think
this breaking change is more than justified.
dyadic m …
first I thought I should learn this construct
now I think I don’t need to
any suggestions?
is this considered an idiom that ought to be known and used?
Am 17.08.20 um 16:20 schrieb Henry Rich:
On the current implementation it is much preferable to use
bitmask operator@]^:["0
… the last version (meant to be raul’s) doesn’t quite look right …
can’t verify right now
Am 17.08.20 um 16:49 schrieb 'Michael Day' via Programming:
Late to the party - I had a look at the problem after the correspondence
closed, and have only
just got home to my own wifi.
I developed a few
Sorry, 0 2 1 3 is obviously wrong,
I meant to say 0 3 2 1
Am 25.05.20 um 14:01 schrieb Hauke Rehr:
is this a more general task, or do you only ever
have exactly four items to arrange that way?
an easier way of doing what you did would be
take any solution, the 0 2 1 3&{ of it,
the |. of
is this a more general task, or do you only ever
have exactly four items to arrange that way?
an easier way of doing what you did would be
take any solution, the 0 2 1 3&{ of it,
the |. of both, and apply (i.4) |."1 to all four.
That sould get you all possible 16 solutions
maybe someone else
I sometimes don’t get the order of thoght and speech right.
Sorry for shouting 16 prior to thinking well about it.
For each first number, the third is fixed, so there are only
two possible ways (permute the other 2). In total, that’s 8.
Am 25.05.20 um 14:15 schrieb 'Mike Day' via Programming:
I
(;@;/ -: ,/) i. 12 2 4
1
Am 29.05.20 um 17:04 schrieb Thomas McGuire:
I have a 3 dimensional array I want to squish it so the rows of the tables just
stack on top of each other.
i. 12 2 4
0 1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
32 33 34
ally doing in J.
Tom McGuire
On May 29, 2020, at 11:19 AM, Henry Rich wrote:
Right: (,/ y) is the idiom.
Henry Rich
On 5/29/2020 11:13 AM, Hauke Rehr wrote:
(;@;/ -: ,/) i. 12 2 4
1
Am 29.05.20 um 17:04 schrieb Thomas McGuire:
I have a 3 dimensional array I want to squish it so the rows of
iption or the input(s).
Thanks,
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 3:27 AM Hauke Rehr wrote:
[snip]
My last use case was a boxed list consisting of
a 1-d array and a set of transpositions I produced.
I wrote (I bet there are better ways to do it)
swap =: ] {~ ~.@[ C.@; <:@#@]
and applied it on that b
the verb would need to apply to L;P
(in my current implementation since
that’s what the mentioned iteration
spits out)
I don’t understand why the boxed pairs
are boxed again in your last solution
but I guess I’ll figure that one out
I never learned ::, that might be the reason
maybe I should
a copy of the J4 Dictionary and study the parser as an exhibit of
Ken mastery of computational forms. Then fuggedaboutit. Your onsub is
fine.
Henry Rich
On 6/1/2020 10:30 PM, Hauke Rehr wrote:
I usually do tacit programming with J,
but what I mean by this is I don’t use x or y
that is I can
I usually do tacit programming with J,
but what I mean by this is I don’t use x or y
that is I can write tacit _verbs_ only.
I know one can be tacit on modifier level etc
but I didn’t ever learn how.
1. is there any good place to start learning?
if not, would anyone mind putting together
helps,
--
Raul
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 10:30 PM Hauke Rehr wrote:
I usually do tacit programming with J,
but what I mean by this is I don’t use x or y
that is I can write tacit _verbs_ only.
I know one can be tacit on modifier level etc
but I didn’t ever learn how.
1. is there any good
If you need to define your own grammar, use perl.
Code is way more often read than written so it’s
best not to have different flavours of language
syntax floating around.
You wouldn’t want to read alias definitions
in order to be able to understand someone’s
code nor would you want to refactor
need some rest and to write it down on paper
before publishing too much incomplete/confusing stuff.
Am 02.06.20 um 12:03 schrieb Hauke Rehr:
sorry for the bad naming,
I rewrote it too many times.
whatshappeningalready is the same as v in my earlier post
I had a working modifier mymod and wanted
mycurrentmod n y
and without assigning its result.
Am 02.06.20 um 11:53 schrieb Hauke Rehr:
What you say is like
(}. ;~ whatshappeningalready@{.)@u
The problem is:
whatshappeningalready uses [ and ] of the enclosing verb
(ex- or implicitly)
I could do
(}. ;~ wha2)@([;];u)
for some value of wha2
What you say is like
(}. ;~ whatshappeningalready@{.)@u
The problem is:
whatshappeningalready uses [ and ] of the enclosing verb
(ex- or implicitly)
I could do
(}. ;~ wha2)@([;];u)
for some value of wha2 (an adjusted way of whatshappeningalready)
but I thought maybe there’s a more elegant way of
I’d expect it’s allocation and copying.
And as you execute it in the repl, there’s no compiler involved.
Rather, the JE “knows” it’s dealing with a single element only.
Am 25.10.20 um 11:52 schrieb pietdion:
> Ok. Thanks.
> What explains the huge time difference?
> Does the compiler somehow
I have an issue using ?. .
?. 2^y
gives the same result for several y in a row.
If I do
?. 2^y+i.x
for the same successive values,
the rng will iterate and values differ.
I understand the difference between the two
invocations and think it’s okay for them to
give different results; but I
Yes, this is the way one should do it:
set a custom random seed.
Thanks
Am 19.07.20 um 17:09 schrieb Julian Fondren:
On 2020-07-19 09:36, Hauke Rehr wrote:
If you don’t know about this and try to
work with powers of two, switching to ?.
someday since you want reproducible results,
you might
much test code that depends on the exact
behavior of ?. that we consider it untouchable.
Henry Rich
On 7/19/2020 8:33 AM, Hauke Rehr wrote:
I have an issue using ?. .
?. 2^y
gives the same result for several y in a row.
If I do
?. 2^y+i.x
for the same successive values,
the rng will iterate
You could build a oneliner out of this multistage process:
d =: 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3
indent =: ' ' <@(#"0 1~) 0 >. <: +/ (i.@# /)"1 indent,.branch
prefix =: '| ' <@#"0 1~ d - , -:@$@> infix
;"1 prefix ,. infix ,. <'o'
which gives the desired result for d
I didn’t test on
If the mountain graph suits you well, how about
,./ ((i.@#) ((' ' , ":@[) {~ =)"0 1 ]) d
0
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
?
Am 07.08.20 um 18:12 schrieb ethiejiesa via Programming:
Thanks for the thoughts!
not as pretty, but simpler and pretty enough?
(":"0@i.@# (,~ #&'-')"1 0 ]) 0 1
O, I just wanted to write a follow-up to my cloumsy attempts
but this one is obviously way better.
Still, it depends on what you want to be able to see at first glance
and how much of your 'terseness requirement' you are willing
to sacrifice for it.
Am 07.08.20 um 18:44 schrieb
my finiteinteger verb
(quote:
finiteinteger =: ((= <.) *. (~: <:))
keepfinint =: (#~ finiteinteger)
endquote)
does what you want in your simple case
but still, big floats may be troublesome,
just as Henry pointed out
Am 02.08.20 um 15:00 schrieb Skip Cave:
I see:
(<.= >.) 1 2.5 __ 3 4.5 6
I was not surprised by the results.
What concept of _ do you have in ^:_ if not one of an “integer?”
Furthermore, (<: <: <.) *. (>: >: >.) is true for any numeric value.
I think it’s obvious that _ is an identity to both (= <:) and (= >:)
– and so both <. and >. must return _ as well (likewise
Sorry, not
“_ is an identity to both (= <:) and (= >:)“
but
“ _ and __ are identities to bot <: and >:”
or
“_ and __ are the only values satisfying both (= <:) and (= >:)”
… except for NaN (_.), but that’s not exactly the topic here I think.
Am 02.08.20 um 12:52 schr
… and maybe N/A or NaN or whatever you call _. .
Am 03.08.20 um 09:04 schrieb Devon McCormick:
You probably don't want negative infinity either:
([: (] #~ (= <.)) _ __ -.~ ]) 1 2.5 _ 3 4.5 6 __
1 3 6
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 3:01 AM Devon McCormick wrote:
You could just remove the
Hello everybody,
I wonder if there’s a simple way to “@:/“ a sequence of steps:
say I want to apply verbs a,b,c,d,e in turn, I could say
sequence =: 3 : 0
e d c b a y
)
turning sequence tacit
sequence =: e@:d@:c@:b@:a
or
sequence =: [: e [: d [: c [: b a
(this is 13:’s suggestion)
I’d rather
juil. 2020 à 11:26, Hauke Rehr a écrit :
Hello everybody,
I wonder if there’s a simple way to “@:/“ a sequence of steps:
say I want to apply verbs a,b,c,d,e in turn, I could say
sequence =: 3 : 0
e d c b a y
)
turning sequence tacit
sequence =: e@:d@:c@:b@:a
or
sequence =: [: e [: d [: c
Thanks Julian,
you described exactly the way I came up with this question.
I’ve not been aware 13: is used other than as a hint
on how to make a verb tacit.
Seeing its use in J packages, I’ll no longer hesitate using it.
I now find I thought manually crafted tacit verbs must be better
in some
Hi Skip,
this is how I would try to achieve what you’re after
] suits =: u: 9824 9827 9829 9830
♠♣♥♦
;/ values =: (3 2 $ ' J Q K') , ": >: i. 10 1
┌──┬──┬──┬──┬──┬──┬──┬──┬──┬──┬──┬──┬──┐
│ J│ Q│ K│ 1│ 2│ 3│ 4│ 5│ 6│ 7│ 8│ 9│10│
└──┴──┴──┴──┴──┴──┴──┴──┴──┴──┴──┴──┴──┘
deck =: ,/
I have two binary patterns, e. g.
a =. 0 1 0 [ b =. 0 0 1 0 0
with a <&$ b
Here is a simple way to get what I want:
a2 =. (a *&$ b) $ a [ b2 =. (a *&$ b) $ b
NB. I need the whole (a *&$ b) patterns
NB. for a and b are of relatively prime $s
or1 =. a2 +. b2
with my example patterns that’s:
a2:
But this does:
tt =: 3 : 0
<\ y
:
(<: x) { <\ y
)
tt >: i.6
┌─┬───┬─┬───┬─┬───┐
│1│1 2│1 2 3│1 2 3 4│1 2 3 4 5│1 2 3 4 5 6│
└─┴───┴─┴───┴─┴───┘
2 4 5 tt >: i.6
┌───┬───┬─┐
│1 2│1 2 3 4│1 2 3 4 5│
└───┴───┴─┘
tt"1 n
As everyone tosses in their 2¢ on this, here are mine:
Back in the days when I had to work with machines
infested with that big fat virus called windows,
I also used 7zip. Nowadays, I usually tar and
untar everything that needs compression.
Am 26.06.20 um 00:24 schrieb HH PackRat:
On 6/25/20,
I think the question was rather about
1e_6 = % *: 1e_3
0
Instead,
1e6 = % *: 1e_3
1
But I don’t know math/uu; is / supposed to denote %?
Does uu '1 /(mm^2)' work?
Am 28.06.20 um 18:15 schrieb Tom Arneson:
Why?
1e6=*:1000
1
On June 27, 2020 at 7:31 AM Mario C wrote:
There is an other
into a conjunction (introducing a v) and thus
perform an arbitrary operation on more than the 'bodyrows'.
I hope this helps,
--
Raul
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 10:30 PM Hauke Rehr wrote:
I usually do tacit programming with J,
but what I mean by this is I don’t use x or y
that is I can write tacit _
Does this test2 actually “specify the rank on the test verb?”
I think " takes the entire verb phrase to its left which imo
is the result of the agenda, not the test only.
Am 08.06.20 um 14:45 schrieb çağlar girit:
Hello Henry,
Yes I'm using J9.02. I saw your explanation in the NuVoc writeup
Judgement
I should follow until I know the language much better myself.
Thanks for all the responses.
Am 03.06.20 um 15:40 schrieb Henry Rich:
Write it using x and y, and assignment of intermediate results.
Henry Rich
On 6/3/2020 3:35 AM, Hauke Rehr wrote:
Once again, starting with my example
test1 i.6
doesn’t work for me either
but both
test1"0 i.6
and
test1"0 i.7
do work as expected
Am 07.06.20 um 16:35 schrieb çağlar girit:
Hi,
Although I have read NuVoc entries for Agenda and Constant Function, I
still don't understand why for "test1 =. 0: ` 1: ` 2: @. (3&|)", "test1 i.
6"
rically is not always useful. Picturing the orbit
> of an electron was an obstacle to physicists trying to understand quantum
> mechanics. Ordinal fraction arithmetic is very simple, and geometric
> interpretations are in my experience unhelpful. So my advice is: understand
> the arithme
t to ijconsole by name. Is this also not
> possible?
>
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 16:01, Hauke Rehr wrote:
>>
>> Usually, languages designed to be as scripts from the command line
>> check for the first line to be a shebang line* and ignore it.
>> Not so with J, so the li
Usually, languages designed to be as scripts from the command line
check for the first line to be a shebang line* and ignore it.
Not so with J, so the line is executed just like all subsequent ones.
I hope this is what you wanted to know.
* some don’t need to since # is amoung their
t; M e. V
>
> :-)
>
> On Sat Dec 26, 2020 at 1:18 AM CET, Thomas Bulka wrote:
>> Hi Hauke,
>>
>> thank you very much. This works perfectly. Looks, like I’ve been
>> thinking to complicated, again...
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>
+/ M e."_ 0 V
does the job
Am 26.12.20 um 00:55 schrieb Thomas Bulka:
> Hello forum,
>
> currently I try to make use of the Fold family of primitives to achieve
> a rather simple (I think) task. However, I have not been able to reach
> the desired goal. This is, what I want to do:
>
> Suppose,
Do I understand correctly that this algebra of data thing
can essentially be represented as a tree (or wood)?
Looks like one could easily represent this using the LEO
editor, maybe even annotating each node and having a top
level script that walks the tree according to the input.
Am 07.01.21 um
Why only moderate?
csv/tsv is amoung the best in scalability,
way more reliable than spreadsheets
(afaik)
Of course, customized databases can be better.
Am 07.01.21 um 23:07 schrieb Devon McCormick:
> To be clear, I was expressing caution about spreadsheets with embedded
> formulas and code.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 5:13 PM Hauke Rehr wrote:
>
>> Why only moderate?
>> csv/tsv is amoung the best in scalability,
>> way more reliable than spreadsheets
>> (afaik)
>> Of course, customized databases can be better.
>>
>> Am 07.01.21 um 23:07 schrieb De
1 - 100 of 400 matches
Mail list logo
