Hmm...
First off, note that 13!:8 signals an error, and its optional left
argument is the text of the signaled error.
Second, note that in this context, the sentence wd ::(''"_) 'qer'
produces the result 'wh : command not found' and that was after the
signaled instance, so it's likely that 'wd : command not found: wd'
came from that same sentence.
In other words, this looks like version drift in j8's implementation
of wd along with something less than ideal in the error reporting
mechanism (which should be indicating an error in the wh command when
signalling that error - the dual appearance of 'wd' was misleading).
And, if I strip out the two wh statements from the definition of
GETURL, trying test'' again gives me a popup dialog.
Unfortunately, there's no event handlers for the buttons on that
popup, so it's inert, and shutting it down requires either shutting
down J or running a sentence such as wd 'pclose'
So you'll probably want to spend a little time reading the docs on wd.
Currently, that seems to mean:
J602:
http://www.jsoftware.com/docs/help602/user/wd.htm
http://www.jsoftware.com/docs/help602/user/wd_commands.htm
J701:
http://www.jsoftware.com/docs/help701/user/wd_commands.htm
J8:
http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Guides/Window%20Driver
With the http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Guides/J8%20Standalone example
apparently reflecting an early version of J8's wd.
Perhaps it would be best to update the J8 Standalone page by removing
the wh commands from that example? But of course there are other
problems here which also deserve some attention.
I hope this helps.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Vijay Lulla <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
