On 16 February 2013 00:12, Raul Miller wrote:
> With this definition, all programming is "functional programming", and
> there's no distinction between "imperative programming" and
> "functional programming".
This 'conclusion' of yours is logically fallacious.
> At this point, I think I will ref
iPad time and space results for Kip's code. Brian Schott tells me correctly
that verb open can be replaced by verb Raze ;
ones =: ; pairs 1 = ?. 200 200 $ 100 NB. paths with one move
# ones
390
5 {. ones NB. each pair represents one move
1 8
1 9
2 41
2 44
2 84
ts ';@:next^:3 one
OK, I think I've got it, thanks. I was using -- for a bidirectional
connection. --Kip
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 15, 2013, at 7:47 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:23 PM, km wrote:
>> My code is for directed graphs as defined in Graphs in Computer Science:
>>
>> http://w
I guess it failed to determine the correct length for the text.
it uses "glqextent" for this purpose. Please search for that word in
plot.
Пт, 15 фев 2013, Devon McCormick писал(а):
> Hi all -
>
> I have a nagging problem with "plot" - it does a poor job of drawing the
> bounding box around the l
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:23 PM, km wrote:
> My code is for directed graphs as defined in Graphs in Computer Science:
>
> http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~sheard/course/Cs163/Doc/Graphs.html
This is consistent with my intent when I used the phrase.
> However, suppose our undirected graph is
>
> 0--1--2-
My code is for directed graphs as defined in Graphs in Computer Science:
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~sheard/course/Cs163/Doc/Graphs.html
However, suppose our undirected graph is
0--1--2--3 (the only edges are those shown).
Am I right that every set of two nodes is visitable from node 2? These ar
This is on J console with JVERSION:
Engine: j701/2011-01-10/11:25
Library: 7.01.082
Platform: Win 64
Installer: j701a_win64.exe
I think this is GTK?
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:03 PM, chris burke wrote:
> I don't see this. What platform are you using?
>
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Devon M
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Boyko Bantchev wrote:
> On 15 February 2013 21:10, Raul Miller wrote:
>> But, since you have never told me what you do mean I am left
>> without any useful approach for understanding the concepts you are
>> referring to. I would like it if, at some point, yo
I don't see this. What platform are you using?
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Devon McCormick wrote:
> Hi all -
>
> I have a nagging problem with "plot" - it does a poor job of drawing the
> bounding box around the legend: some text often extends past the box. For
> example, entering somethin
On 15 February 2013 21:10, Raul Miller wrote:
> But, since you have never told me what you do mean I am left
> without any useful approach for understanding the concepts you are
> referring to. I would like it if, at some point, you supplied some
> definitions for the meanings of some of the
wrapc does look plausible - to avoid memory problems we could break
the processing of the problematic line so it chews on smaller chunks
of data.
And, I am expecting that one step of iteration have a computational
cost which is a multiple of the square of the number of distinct nodes
reached so fa
Yes: for me, since I was just interested in knowing the unique sets of
visitable nodes with a population of N, I would treat 1 8 6 and 1 6 8
as equivalent (or, more precisely, in the context of your code:
interchangeable), and I would treat a 7 7 path as visiting only a
single node.
How does your
Raul,
I have carefully ignored your later posts and may be on a different track than
you intended. Here is where I am. Path 1 8 6 means there is a directed edge
from 1 to 8 and a directed edge from 8 to 6 and is different from path 1 6 8 if
such a path exists. You can even have a one edge
Note also that there are related (linguistic) issues associated with
concepts like "number" and "equality" - english (like all "natural
languages") is contextual and we deal with this issue so often that we
usually do not pay any attention to it.
That said, we do have informal ways of referring to
More useful to assign a special meaning to "function", I think. Then you
can include things like ?, file reads, comparisons (which depend on
tolerance), etc.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Devon McCormick wrote:
> One functional language definition of "function" that I've seen is along
> the
One functional language definition of "function" that I've seen is along
the lines of "a function always returns the same result for the same input"
which apparently excludes anything like "?" in J unless we assign a special
meaning to "same".
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
Hi all -
I have a nagging problem with "plot" - it does a poor job of drawing the
bounding box around the legend: some text often extends past the box. For
example, entering something as simple as
'title Demonstrate Legend Defect;key Before After' plot 2 100?@$0
gives a legend box in which t
Yes, "tree" is not the best word, though it does hint at the existence
of branches - however its structure doesn't reveal the links. Each row
is a sorted list, I suppose. Whatever we call it, I think you've got a
big problem in finding all such "things" each with 100 unique members,
in a 2
Thank you, again.
I have not yet had time to read through wrapb, but a quick glance
suggests that the "too many paths (or 'trees', maybe )" issue could
probably be resolved by sorting each "path" before determining
uniqueness.
That said, I am more uncomfortable labelling these "visitable sets"
wi
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Boyko Bantchev wrote:
> On 15 February 2013 18:01, Raul Miller wrote:
>> It seems we differ on the definition of a mathematical "function".
>
> I wonder how you came to this conclusion, since 'mathematical
> functions' were not discussed.
It came about because I
Thanks. I think my verb "wrapb" _is_ doing what you want, even though
it doesn't get your answer of 5945 tree-paths for
10 graph2 wrap 0
I've just seen your later posting.
Sorry about 1 1$y - I agree, but had thought you only wanted a single
starting node.
You then say
"
But this is a prob
On 15 February 2013 18:01, Raul Miller wrote:
> It seems we differ on the definition of a mathematical "function".
I wonder how you came to this conclusion, since 'mathematical
functions' were not discussed.
Apart from that, your statement:
> Here, you have introduced a definition of "function"
After reading this code, I see two issues.
First, this line:
p=. 1 1 $ y
should be
p=. ,. y
The original supported multiple start nodes, and I do not yet see any
simplicity advantages to considering only a single starting node. We
already need to deal with multiple paths, so why not allow
I looked at the commit log, apparently I add that patch with
that comment some years ago when mirgrating to j701. If you
examine the callback, you will find it is plausible but can fail
in all OS because there is no gaurantee that a positve number
inside a certain range cannot be a memory pointer
David, I see what you mean. But IF64 is also true in windows, which is what
I am using, so it seems like a bug.
It is working after changing that line to:
SetCharacterDataHandler^:(-.IF64*.'Linux'-:UNAME) PARSER;cdcb 3 NB. crash
in linux64
Thanks.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:09 AM, David Ward
You're using a 64 bit linux system. character is disabled because it
core dumps.
sax.ijs:
...
create=: 3 : 0
PARSER=: ParserCreate <<0
IGNOREWS=: 0
seterr''
SetElementHandler PARSER;(cdcb 3);(cdcb 2)
SetCharacterDataHandler^:(-.IF64) PARSER;cdcb 3 NB. crash in linux64
)
> Date: Fri,
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Boyko Bantchev wrote:
> On 15 February 2013 15:27, Raul Miller wrote:
>> Here, you have introduced a definition of "function" which conflicts
>> with the usual meaning of the word when people talk about functional
>> programming.
>> ..
>
> Surely not. And the
I know very little about this addons nor did I use it. Did you
mean it worked previously in J6 but failed in J7? FYI this
addons will not work in J7 GTK, try test on j7 jconsole instead
if that matters.
Пт, 15 фев 2013, Thomas Costigliola писал(а):
> I am having a problem with the sax addon in J
On 15 February 2013 15:27, Raul Miller wrote:
> Here, you have introduced a definition of "function" which conflicts
> with the usual meaning of the word when people talk about functional
> programming.
> ..
Surely not. And the appropriateness of the linguistic effort in the
above post evade
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Boyko Bantchev wrote:
> The 'Lexical Closure' essay
> (http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Guides/Lexical%20Closure)
> mentioned in this thread declares lexical closures to be
> 'incompatible with the functional programming model'.
> Such a statement is incorrect.
>
> I
I'll have to take some time to read your code (there's a lot of it).
But perhaps this can illustrate why I initially called them "paths"
(though they can branch):
Here's a numeric representation of the connection graph. First column
is index, second column represents what that node connects to:
The 'Lexical Closure' essay
(http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Guides/Lexical%20Closure)
mentioned in this thread declares lexical closures to be
'incompatible with the functional programming model'.
Such a statement is incorrect.
If a function returns different values for the same arguments, it
is n
32 matches
Mail list logo
