Whoops!
Yes, I'd been using I. in a slightly different structure,
with a two-column table of lower and upper bounds on
n for every m, and had forgotten to change it to (i. <./)
for the vector form with all lower bounds followed by
all upper bounds; I'd found it slightly less messy,
and (i.<./)
Your approach looks very sensible. But I am curious about this result,
which is not what I expected:
bestmn 1e3
7 8 8 7
If I change the second to last line in bestmnv to read
i =. (i. <./) d
I get
bestmn 1e3
7 8
Are there cases where this would be a problem?
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Tue, O
The Jsoftware server is scheduled for maintenance on 2014-10-16 for 2 hours
starting at 20:00 UTC. During this time email and website will be
unavailable.
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
OK - I've re-engineered a solution method which deals with
required numbers several orders of magnitude higher than
2e6. I expect my original approach was the whole array
approach as recently discussed, but I can't find it anywhere
in my files.
Apologies for any silly line-throws.
The maths sh
