Perhaps more pleasant,

   (the_square_root=. %:) of ((the_sum=.+/)) (of=.@:) (the_squares=. *:)
%:@:(+/)@:*:


   the_square_root of the_sum of the_squares 3 4
5


On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Jose Mario Quintana <
[email protected]> wrote:

>
>    ([: %: [: +/ *:)decap  NB. :)
> %:@:(+/@:*:)
>
>    (squareroot=. %:) of ((sum=.+/)) (of=. @:) (squares=. *:)
> %:@:(+/)@:*:
>
>    squareroot of sum of squares 1 2 3
> 3.74165739
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Kip Murray <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I regard cap as a brilliant invention, analagous to the invention of zero.
>>  "Does nothing" cap is analagous to "Adds nothing" zero.  It may help you
>> to read cap in trains as "the ... of ...", eg
>>
>> [: %: [: +/ *:
>>
>> is the square root of the sum of squares.
>>
>> --Kip Murray
>>
>> On Sunday, February 15, 2015, Jose Mario Quintana <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > I enjoy decapitating capped forks in a flash using one of my favorite
>> > wicked adverbs (decap),
>> >
>> >    ( NoProblem=. see f.decap )
>> > i.@:[ +/ i.@:(#~)
>> >
>> >    3 NoProblem 2
>> > 0 1  2
>> > 3 4  5
>> > 6 7  8
>> >
>> > 1 2  3
>> > 4 5  6
>> > 7 8  9
>> >
>> > 2 3  4
>> > 5 6  7
>> > 8 9 10
>> >
>> > Decap replaces the form ([: u v) by (u@:v).  If for whatever reason one
>> > wants to avoid @: in favor of @ (and ") then the form (u@:v) could
>> always
>> > be replaced by (u@v”_),
>> >
>> >    3 (i.@["_ +/ i.@(#~)"_) 2
>> > 0 1  2
>> > 3 4  5
>> > 6 7  8
>> >
>> > 1 2  3
>> > 4 5  6
>> > 7 8  9
>> >
>> > 2 3  4
>> > 5 6  7
>> > 8 9 10
>> >
>> > Sometimes one can get away by simply replacing @: by @,
>> >
>> >     3 (i.@[   +/ i.@(#~)  ) 2
>> > 0 1  2
>> > 3 4  5
>> > 6 7  8
>> >
>> > 1 2  3
>> > 4 5  6
>> > 7 8  9
>> >
>> > 2 3  4
>> > 5 6  7
>> > 8 9 10
>> >
>> > By the way, when the meaning of an expression is undefined; for example,
>> > in,
>> >
>> >    `/
>> > |syntax error
>> > |       `/
>> >
>> > An enlighten person could modify the official interpreted and assign a
>> new,
>> > or an ancient, meaning to that form (the conjunction adverb form in the
>> > example above) extending the current J language.  However, in your
>> > sentence:
>> >
>> >      [:>:i.4
>> > |domain error
>> > |       [:>:i.4
>> >
>> > that is not the case.  So, either the monadic definition of [: would
>> have
>> > to changed (and most likely someone's existing code would brake) or our
>> > beloved sophisticated simple parsing rules would have to be alter (and
>> the
>> > sky would fall).
>> >
>> > Thus, "If the hill will not come to Mahomet, Mahomet will go to the
>> hill"
>> > comes to mind.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Linda Alvord <[email protected]
>> > <javascript:;>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Brian, I like 9!: combinaions. Is it true that you can always remove
>> [:
>> > > from
>> > > a tacit monadic function?
>> > >
>> > > Also, it doesn't seem to be possible to remove all  of them from a
>> dyadic
>> > > verb.  Here's some examples from code run in a terminal:
>> > >
>> > > 9!:3]5
>> > >    see=: 13 :'(i.x)+/i.y#x'
>> > >    3 see 2
>> > > 0 1  2
>> > > 3 4  5
>> > > 6 7  8
>> > >
>> > > 1 2  3
>> > > 4 5  6
>> > > 7 8  9
>> > >
>> > > 2 3  4
>> > > 5 6  7
>> > > 8 9 10
>> > >    see
>> > > ([: i. [) +/ [: i. #~
>> > >    9!:3]5
>> > >    cbB=: 13 :'<"0@>:@i.y'
>> > >    pairs=: 13 :'(>:@i. x),"0/>:@i. y'
>> > >    countB =: <@cb"1@pairs
>> > >
>> > >    cbB
>> > > <"0@>:@i.
>> > >    pairs
>> > > ([: >:@i. [) ,"0/ [: >:@i. ]
>> > >    countB
>> > > <@cb"1@pairs
>> > >
>> > >    Linda
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: [email protected] <javascript:;>
>> > > [mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>] On
>> > Behalf Of Brian
>> > > Schott
>> > > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 2:34 PM
>> > > To: Programming forum
>> > > Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Source of frustration
>> > >
>> > > Raul,
>> > >
>> > > Yes, thanks.
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]
>> > <javascript:;>>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I think you mean "tree representation" where you wrote "linear
>> > > > representation".
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > (B=)
>> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > For information about J forums see
>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>> > >
>> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > For information about J forums see
>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>> > >
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to