I tried the example listed on this page but I'm getting errors (I had
problems with wh so I replaced them with wd). Specifically, I get
test ''
|wd : command not found: wd
| (wd ::(''"_)'qer') (13!:8)3
However, if I type wd on my ide session I get
wd
3 : 0"1
smoutput^:(1<Debugwd_jqtide_) y
'r c l p n'=. wd1 (,y);(#,y);(,2);(,0)
select. r
case. 0 do.
EMPTY
case. _1 do.
memr p,0,n
case. _2 do.
_2 [\ <;._2 memr p,0,n
case. do.
if. d=. Debugwd_jqtide_ do.
smoutput^:(1=Debugwd_jqtide_) y
smoutput '**ERROR**'
Debugwd_jqtide_=: d [ e=. wd ::(''"_) 'qer' [ Debugwd_jqtide_=: 0
smoutput e
e (13!:8) 3
else.
(wd ::(''"_) 'qer') (13!:8) 3
end.
end.
)
Details for J are:
JVERSION
Engine: j803/2014-10-19-11:11:11
Library: 8.03.10
Qt IDE: 1.3.1/5.3.2
Platform: Darwin 64
Installer: J803 install
InstallPath: /users/v/code/apl/j64-803
How do I resolve this error?
Thanks,
Vijay.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:27 AM, chris burke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Has anyone built a standalone Mac app using JQt?
>
> Please see http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Guides/J8%20Standalone
>
> On 25 February 2015 at 06:09, Ian Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> @Henry -- thanks for your comments. Great!
>>
>> IMO this is just the sort of discussion I would like to see aired in
>> public. Though maybe do the more philosophical stuff in Chat?
>> Ideally I would like a summary of the J community's findings
>> documented on a Jwiki page for wider consumption.
>>
>> Further comments in-line…
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > We should take this off-group, but I'm replying in public because if I'm
>> > wrong I would like to be corrected (and I'm only an amateur
>> statistician):
>>
>> That's exactly why I'm appealing to the forum too.
>> …To the annoyance of Real Statisticians, no doubt, because this must
>> be elementary stuff to them.
>> But Wikipedia -- which you'd expect to give simple answers to simple
>> questions which laypeople want to ask and need to ask -- approaches
>> the whole issue like a cat circling a bowl of hot porridge.
>> …If you're a layperson, just try working out how to score the "Lady
>> Tasting Tea" experiment from these pages…
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_test
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_distribution
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_trial
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_process
>>
>> As a Human Factors *engineer* -- I've been a professional *user* of
>> hypothesis-testing but an amateur Statistician.
>> …Or should that be Probabilist? Or even Epistemologist?
>>
>> Plus… now I'm retired, I'm getting rusty.
>>
>> Plus… I can't find precise enough documentation of JAL verb: binomialprob.
>> Like… what's the semantics of the 3rd entry of (y) (styled "minimum
>> number of successes (s)") when y has only 3 entries? Can it be called
>> "minimum" any more? What I've concluded, after a bit of RTFC plus a
>> few idiot tests, is:
>>
>> (binomialprob 0.5,N,s) -: (binomialprob 0.5,N,s,N)
>>
>> Plus… has this doggie got 2 tails or just 1??
>>
>>
>> > I think you are calling binomialprob correctly but I have some
>> objections to
>> > your use of the result.
>> >
>> > 1. I think your rejectH0 should use 1 - -: CONFIDENCE instead of
>> > 1-CONFIDENCE.
>> >
>> > The question is, "How likely is a result as weird as I am seeing,
>> assuming
>> > H0?" You should not bias "weird" by assuming that weird results will be
>> > correct guesses - they could just as likely be incorrect guesses. To
>> ensure
>> > that you reject 95% of the purely-chance deviations of a certain size,
>> that
>> > 95% should be centered around the mean, not loaded toward one side.
>>
>> The "1-tail-or-2?" question -- or so I thought at first.
>> But it's deeper than that. It's much more serious. Serious enough to
>> be the key issue for me.
>> Which is precisely why I want to be *sure*. Sure enough to argue my
>> case to a determined layperson. Not merely make an inspired guess, as
>> most people would in an industrial situation (…knowing no one else
>> knows enough statistics to dare to challenge you!)
>>
>> What I understand @Henry to be saying is: should the 5% area under the
>> binomial distribution curve, which sets the pass/fail threshold, be
>> shared equally between both tails? Even if one tail happens to be in
>> fairyland?
>>
>> What I mean by that last remark is…
>> If The Lady Tasting Tea (TLTT) gets every trial *wrong*, then she's
>> *not* a monkey flipping a fair coin. It's a very biased coin!
>> She is sending a strong signal that she can be depended upon (…with X%
>> confidence) to make the wrong decision.
>> But I don't want to credit her this as evidence to support her claim
>> she can tell the difference (…at least, not tell it correctly).
>> This is what makes TLTT different from detecting a biased coin by
>> repeated tosses.
>>
>> What's to do?
>>
>>
>> > are there really people who think optical might be better than USB??
>>
>> Oh-ho-ho! -- yes, they can still be found.
>> Hi-Fi buffs have not become extinct, and the (undead?) audio industry
>> still lives off their lifeblood.
>>
>>
>> > This is digital communication, no? 44K samples/sec, 2 channels, 20
>> bits/sample,
>> > needs 2Mb/sec max out of 480Mb/sec rated USB speed... how could that not
>> be
>> > enough?
>>
>> My interlocutor claims it's like the group was there, in his front
>> room, playing "just for him".
>> Now this guy is an intelligent chap, a developer of digital musical
>> instruments and a sound engineer as well as being an accomplished
>> musician. He sends me two MP3s (…yes, lossy MP3s!) to support his
>> claim. I drop these into Audacity and inspect the waveform at very
>> fine detail and I cannot for the life of me detect any difference.
>> So I know, as sure as God made little Apples, that I'm not going to
>> *hear* any difference.
>> But I've got lo-fi ears. In fact I'm half-deaf. Most of what I hear I
>> imagine. Mostly I get it right with people (I think…) But I don't know
>> what subliminal cues I'm using to do so. It's the "clever Hans"
>> effect.
>>
>> Maybe there are people who *can* tell the difference? But from my
>> pondering the figures, like you have, plus eyeballing the waveforms,
>> we're talking about magical superpowers here.
>>
>>
>> > It was ever thus... when I last looked at this sort of thing, 20 years
>> back,
>> > the debate was whether big fat expensive cables would make a difference.
>> > Bob Pease, a respected analog engineer, pointed out that it was
>> impossible,
>> > and James Randi had a bet that no one could discern $7000 cables from
>> > ordinary speaker wire, but still the non-EEs have their superstitions...]
>>
>> That's around the time my son was spending all his pocket-money on big
>> fat speaker cables and gold-plated jack-plugs.
>> Now he's teaching a Theory of Knowledge course (…yes, Epistemology!)
>> at a school in Hong Kong. He is greedy to get his hands on my little
>> program, and dispel a few lingering superstitions masquerading as
>> received wisdom about science.
>>
>> I want to package it up and send it to him, but I don't want to ask
>> him to install J on his Mac because not only will he grouse like heck
>> about fairy software but it will discourage him sharing the app with
>> his colleages, who share his sentiments.
>>
>> I know how to package up a standalone Mac app in J602, but J602 and my
>> packaged apps no longer work out-of-the-box on the Mac under Yosemite
>> (it's to do with 32-bit Java). Has anyone built a standalone Mac app
>> using JQt? If so I'd dearly love to see a monkey-see monkey-do page on
>> Jwiki. I'll write one myself, but it'll be a year before I can get
>> round to it.
>>
>>
>> > 2. Why 95%? I would fear that someone who is thinking about optical
>> cable
>> > would rest uneasy with a 5-10% chance that they have not spent enough on
>> > quality audio. Why not simply report, "A monkey with a coin to toss
>> would
>> > do as well as you y% of the time. Most researchers accept results as
>> > significant only if the monkey would do as well less than 5% of the time.
>> > Take more samples if you want less uncertainty."
>>
>> 95% is just for the sake of argument. 99% is there as an option. IMO
>> more options are neither necessary nor advisable.
>> The number of trials can be varied too. I'd like to offer 10 or 20
>> trials. But 20 gets tedious, so I'm offering the option to give up
>> when you're bored and score the number you've done.
>> (This is an app for discretionary users -- we're not paying our
>> subjects $10 a session.)
>>
>> Anything under 7 trials fails to reject H0 however many successes. But
>> that's dependent on the value of CONFIDENCE and how it's to be
>> applied. But only to make a difference of 1 or maybe 2 trials.
>> I'm finding in practice that with such a low number of trials as 10,
>> anything short of 100% correct is statistical hairsplitting when it
>> comes to rejecting H0. With 20 trials there's more leeway: you're
>> allowed to get 3 or 4 wrong before the app rubbishes you.
>>
>> As for your wording: it's theoretically sound, but a trifle insulting.
>> Performing musicians have sizeable egos and wouldn't like to be rated
>> along with performing monkeys. :-)
>>
>> Ian
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
