Here is how I wrote your verb. How would you write it as an explicit verb?
f=: [:>./([:([:>:i.)#)([: >./[ * <./\)"0 1 ]
f qq
7030779
Linda
-Original Message-
From: Programming [mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf
Of Raul Miller
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2
Oops, here's a fix for that corner case in my version:
Iinv=: (e.~ i.@(1+>./@,&0))
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:00 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
wrote:
> The discussion you linked to devolved into, "but it will cut off original
> length, so not a real inverse"
> there w
The discussion you linked to devolved into, "but it will cut off original
length, so not a real inverse"
there was also the corner case of i.0 (potential result of I.), fixed imo with:
(#/.~@])`(~.@])`(0#~>:@(>./)@])}~`0:@.(0 = #) i.0
0
But, something that didn't come up in the thread is the eas
Don,
I have been "thresholding" which I believe is the typical name for the
process of converting an rgb image to a b&w image using the ideas I have
read about in Cliff Reiter's book entitled, "Fractals, Visualization and
J." In that book he defines the following terms and I use the "threshold"
11
Linda, bear in mind that Raul was (I think) deriving a tacit improvement
of my explicit verb "c" which had incorporated an explicit loop.
Here it is, again, possibly without gratuitous line-throws:
c =: 3 : 0
m =. >./y
for_i. }.>:i.#y do.
m =. m >. >./ i ([ * <./\) y
end.
)
It happens to
Technically, any result which is not a reversible transformation of
the image can be thought of as "losing information".
--
Raul
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Don Guinn wrote:
> Are you losing information by applying the threshold to each point without
> regard to the points around it? If
Are you losing information by applying the threshold to each point without
regard to the points around it? If most or all the points around it are
large values then it is more likely that the threshold should be lower than
if the point is surrounded by lower values. Also, maybe look at the overall
I turned your verb to a different expression. Can you write my version as an
explicit verb?
f=: [:>./([:([:>:i.)#)([: >./[ * <./\)"0 1 ]
f qq
7030779
Linda
-Original Message-
From: Programming [mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf
Of Raul Miller
Sent: Satu
Linda,
I see it and it is a beautiful diamond.
Thanks,
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Linda Alvord
wrote:
>
> load 'viewmat'
> ]B=:A*.|.A*.|.A=:-.(500+x) ]P=:2 3$255 255 255 255 0 0
> P viewmat B
> I couldn't resist making a "beginner's diamond.
>
> Good luck with the cards. I'm looking
Or, equivalently for those examples:
Amend=:(0{::[)`(1{::[)`]}
(To make this equivalent for all examples, change the 1 to _1)
FYI,
--
Raul
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:47 AM, Erling Hellenäs
wrote:
> If you don't want to write a new function when you want to insert something
> else, you can
You can specify the length of the result using {. on the result.
Also, you could use (e.~ i.@(1+>./)) for the obverse monad.
FYI,
--
Raul
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Marshall Lochbaum wrote:
> All (I.)s used in my post refer to the monad. I meant that the monadic
> verb given by binding
All (I.)s used in my post refer to the monad. I meant that the monadic
verb given by binding my dyadic verb to a left argument (which must be
(i.n) for a large enough n) is a mostly-inverse to (I.). It's probably
best to ignore my informal discussion if you plan on implementing this.
There's a foru
If you don't want to write a new function when you want to insert
something else, you can do like this:
Amend=:([:>[:{.[)`([:>[:{:[)`] }
(42;1) Amend 1 2 3
1 42 3
(41;2) Amend 0 1 2
0 1 41
(41 42;1 2) Amend 0 1 2
0 41 42
Cheers Erling
On 2017-06-23 14:54, Rudolf Sykora wrote:
put
13 matches
Mail list logo
