A bigger problem might be the slight upward bias in this algo. It's exacerbated if you have a lot of halves in your data:
rr=. -: 100?@$100 usus rr NB. usus -> usual stats: Min, max, mean, SD 0 49.5 27.63 14.7935 usus round rr NB. Higher mean: significant? 0 50 27.9 14.7802 mean&> (round;]) -: 100?@$100 22.28 21.975 -/mean&> (round;]) -: 100?@$100 0.275 -/mean&> (round;]) -: 100?@$100 0.225 $100 ([: -: ?@$)&.>100$100 100 usus ([: -/ [: mean&> round ; ]) &> 100 ([: -: ?@$)&.>1e6$100 0.13 0.365 0.250008 0.0249975 NB. Could be significant... On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think that that definition of round can be tacit and use under. > > A tacit implementation might be: > 1&$: : ([ * <.@+~&1r2@%~) > > Note also: this is a verb, not an adverb. In this definition, 1 is the > default value for x, not a control argument for : > > FYI, > > -- > Raul > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:55 AM, David Ward Lambert > <[email protected]> wrote: > > round =: 1&$: : (dyad def '<.@:(1r2+])&.:(%&x) y') > > assert 1 -: round 1.2 > > assert 1.25 -: 0.25 round 1.2 > > > > Round =: adverb def '<.@:(1r2+])&.:(%&m) y' > > > > Is there a tacit definition of round using under? > > What is the tacit definition of adverb Round? > > Thanks, Dave. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- Devon McCormick, CFA ^me^ at acm. org is my preferred e-mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
