I find this example unconvincing as the following achieves the same end
much more simply and efficiently.
f i.2 5
01 0.5 0.33 0.25
0.2 0.17 0.1428570.125 0.11
f 0
0
f 3j4
0.12j_0.16
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:48 PM, David Lambert wrote:
> I don't fin
I don't find examples of "under itemize" in the under essay. I inserted
an entry " Extend verb domain".
reciprocal_or_zero =: =&0`(0,:~%)} NB. zeros may come from fill
reciprocal_or_zero 8 NB. OH NO!
|rank error: reciprocal_or_zero
| reciprocal_or_zero 8
(;$
Oops. The previous code gives the first column. This is the corrected code,
with the same assumptions as before but with more
than 3 columns.
st =. ,: 1 0 , 0 6 ,: 0 0
st =. st , 2 0 , 0 6 ,: 1 0
st =. st , 0 6 , 0 6 ,: 3 1
st =. st , 4 3 , 0 6 ,: 3 0
st =. st , 4 0 , 0 0 ,: 4 0
tab =. 9 { a. NB.
Assumptions:
- no double tabs
- no blank lines
- no blank columns
- no line starts with a tab
- no column itself contains a tab
- no CR
- more than 2 columns
- file is whole (rank 1 and not split by LF)
st =. 1 0 , 0 6 ,: 0 0
st =. st ,: 0 6 , 0 6 ,: 2 1
st =. st , 3 3 , 0 6 ,: 2 0
st =. st , 3 0
I've been working with big (multiple GB) text files and recently put
together the following that seems to work Ok.
freadLFblk is a slightly modified version freadblock (it enables the block
size to be specified). freadLFblks then essentially
loops through the blocks. There are probably a few wrinkl
Ah, beautiful, this is what I'm looking for. Thank you!
-Dan
-Original Message-
From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com
[mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Henry Rich
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 5:55 PM
To: programm...@jsoftware.com
Subject: Re: [Jp
Using a sequential machine to get the second column from the whole file and
then doing the comparison might be faster.
On Oct 10, 2013 9:23 AM, "Raul Miller" wrote:
> When the size of your data exceeds some significant fraction of
> available memory, it's probably worth using a loop.
>
> In other
Mine is at
www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Scripts/Socket System
Henry Rich
On 10/10/2013 2:48 PM, Dan Bron wrote:
Does anyone have a reasonably complete socket client implementation in J? I
have a very simple one, but it lacks error handling, data buffering, etc.
It would save me a few hours if some
No I don't think so. My vague memory is that because the generation of new
solutions is essentially done by generating differences between existing
legal solutions, the phenomena you describe should be unlikely.
A workaround (that wouldn't involve modifying the addon) would be to build
bounds check
Thanks, I'll take a look.
-Original Message-
From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com
[mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Kenneth
Lettow
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 3:51 PM
To: programm...@jsoftware.com
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Socket client
Hey Da
Hey Dan,
Have you taken a look at Scott Locklin's j-ZeroMQ stuff? I've toyed with
it a bit, but I am not sure if this is what you are looking for.
https://github.com/locklin/j-zeromq
http://zeromq.org/
Ken
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Dan Bron wrote:
> That's more of a tutorial or toy,
That's more of a tutorial or toy, not a framework or implementation. My
current simple socket client is derived from the socket labs.
-Dan
-Original Message-
From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com
[mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Björn
Helgason
Sent:
Thanks Pascal. Similar run-time , slightly slower on two runs -- around 115
avg each vs 100
I had to modify it to make it work, so I assume this is the same as what
you had intended and you mentioned it wasn't tested
+/ (<'ABC') = 2&{@:([: <;._1 TAB -.~ ])"1 mf
It needed a cap I think (accordin
When the size of your data exceeds some significant fraction of
available memory, it's probably worth using a loop.
In other words: first develop your code so it works on a smaller data
set, then pick some suitably large block size (1GB?) and loop over
however many blocks you need.
Loops are more
look at the socket labs
On Oct 10, 2013 6:48 PM, "Dan Bron" wrote:
> Does anyone have a reasonably complete socket client implementation in J?
> I
> have a very simple one, but it lacks error handling, data buffering, etc.
> It would save me a few hours if someone has a ready-made example or
> f
Does anyone have a reasonably complete socket client implementation in J? I
have a very simple one, but it lacks error handling, data buffering, etc.
It would save me a few hours if someone has a ready-made example or
framework.
-Dan
-
When using deoptim I am getting solutions outside of the bounds I am
providing.
>From looking at the code it looks like new populations are generated within
the bounds but the evolution step doesn't ensure the boundary conditions.
Is that the intended behavior?
+/ (3 :'(2{"1 (< ;._1 TAB -.~ y))=<''ABC''')"1 mf
match '-:' might be faster than =, but overall just a tacit version:
+/ (<'ABC') = 2&{@:(<;._1 TAB -.~ ])"1 mf
untested
- Original Message -
From: Joe Bogner
To: programm...@jsoftware.com
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:02:07
I have a 5 gig, 9 million row tab delimited file that I'm working with.
I started with a subset of 300k records and used fapplylines. It took about
5 seconds. I shaved 2 seconds off by modifying fapplylines to use memory
mapped files
I then applied it to my larger file and found that it was takin
My proposal is roughly identical to Jose's 2nd proposal, with the possible
enhancement/difference that:
where A1 and A2 are trains of 0 or more adverbs (a a... a), then
The conjunction (A1 c A2) would be equivalent to the explicit 2 : 'u A1 c v A2'
Though I'm likely oversimplifying, this would o
http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/programming/2013-February/031684.html
might interest you.
--
Raul
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Pascal Jasmin wrote:
> creating a conjunction tacitly is hacky or impossible. currently the train
> (a c) is a syntax error. What I'd suggest instead is that
in terms of useful examples with built ins, the conjunctions @: ` &. would
combine with adverbs like each, leaf, or bound adverbs "n L:n.
so writting (1 : '@:v"0 1') as just (@:"0 1) avoids maintaining variations of
conjunctions such as
amend NB. conjunction version of G}
amend
creating a conjunction tacitly is hacky or impossible. currently the train (a
c) is a syntax error. What I'd suggest instead is that it be treated as a
conjunction. So the explicit (2 : ']`u@.v') could be written as (]`@.)
If 1 conjunction is present in what whould otherwise be an adverb tra
23 matches
Mail list logo
