On 8/28/17, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
> You can try Zsban Ambrus' TacitToExplict script [0] "It's not perfect, so
> some strange verbs might not work."
> I hope it helps.
>
> [0] Scripts/TacitToExplicit Zsban Ambrus
> http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Scripts/TacitToExplicit
Thanks for this ci
You can try Zsban Ambrus' TacitToExplict script [0] "It's not perfect, so
some strange verbs might not work."
However,
test=. [: +/ ([: -. 2 | ]) # ]
test tte
3 : 0
t0=. -. (2) | y
s0=. t0 # y
(+/)s0
)
test tte (1+i.42)
462
I hope it helps.
[0] Scripts/TacitToExplicit Zsban Ambrus
Not built-in to the language. You could pretend to be the computer and expand
tacit code yourself while referring to the dictionary, renaming chunks to help
you.
Otherwise there might be some code somewhere that does this, but I don't know
of it.
Good luck,
Louis
> On 29 Aug 2017, at 00:00, P
Dear Group:
On 8/28/17, Jose Mario Quintana wrote:
> The tacit translator was my faithful teacher a long time ago and I still
> use it occasionally, nowadays to understand non-tacit code.
Is there any translator (or is it impossible?) to go the opposite way,
that is, tacit to explicit?
At my ba
We have fixed it (I hope).
The installer should install libj.so and 9!:14 should show j64avx.
Please try again and thanks for your patience.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Eric Iverson
wrote:
> Yes, there is a chance I messed up the packaging again. I will take a look
> later today.
>
> On Mon
"I'm sure this can be done in a single line using a hook or fork.
but I'm not clear enough with the train rules to put this all together
on a single line."
One can always ask the tacit translator (if worst come to worst one would
get an explicit answer back).
13 : '+/(-.2|a)#a [ a=.>:i.42'
[:
^!.1&2&-: 42
(2!>:)&.-: 42
Henry Rich
On 8/28/2017 2:48 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
Oops, I thought I had included that one.
Thanks,
--
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Oops, I thought I had included that one.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:37 PM, 'Mike Day' via Programming
wrote:
> What about using some Maths?
> E.g.
> (*>:)@-:42
> 462
>
> Mike
>
> Please reply to mike_liz@tiscali.co.uk.
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On 28 Aug 2017, at 18:12, Raul
Hi,
I think they want a formula like the one to sum the first n integers
(n*(n+1))/2.
For the sum of even integers up to 42 in J that would be:
(*>:) -: 42
462
For the sum of even integers up to n :
(*>:) <. -: i.43
0 0 2 2 6 6 12 12 20 20 30 30 42 42 56 56 72 72 90 90 110 110 132 132
What about using some Maths?
E.g.
(*>:)@-:42
462
Mike
Please reply to mike_liz@tiscali.co.uk.
Sent from my iPad
> On 28 Aug 2017, at 18:12, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> Well... the simplest J implementation for that problem would be:
>
> 462
> 462
>
> But there are other ways of ge
Well... the simplest J implementation for that problem would be:
462
462
But there are other ways of getting that result:
+/(* 0 = 2&|)1+i.42
462
+/(* 0 = 2&|)i.43
462
+/2*i.>:-:42
462
+/2*1+i.21
462
+/2*i.22
462
and... so on...
I suppose a part of the question is: what is ac
A simple problem posted on Quora:
What is the sum of all the even numbers from 2 to 42?
My J solution:
a=:>:i.42
+/(-.2|a)#a
462
I'm sure this can be done in a single line using a hook or fork.
but I'm not clear enough with the train rules to put this all together
on a single line.
Any sugg
Yes, there is a chance I messed up the packaging again. I will take a look
later today.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Xiao-Yong Jin
wrote:
> It reported j64 instead of j64avx, and the performance is lower, too.
> I guess something is wrong with the packaging again?
>
> > On Aug 28, 2017, at
It reported j64 instead of j64avx, and the performance is lower, too.
I guess something is wrong with the packaging again?
> On Aug 28, 2017, at 3:10 AM, bill lam wrote:
>
> jkt@set1:~$ jb
> JVERSION
> Engine: j806/j64/linux
> Beta-5: commercial/2017-08-23T10:33:49
>
> The line Engine reporte
For a fair comparison of KJT benchmark, future %. need to be excluded from blas.
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 Aug, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Roger Hui wrote:
> See also http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Essays/JKT_Benchmark
>
> On Aug 28, 2017 03:17, "Joey K Tuttle" wrote:
>
>> I have installed the new be
See also http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Essays/JKT_Benchmark
On Aug 28, 2017 03:17, "Joey K Tuttle" wrote:
> I have installed the new beta on my MacBook and on a Ubuntu server. No
> particular problems, but some fiddling around was required to get jQt
> working on the Mac. I only use ssh access
jkt@set1:~$ jb
JVERSION
Engine: j806/j64/linux
Beta-5: commercial/2017-08-23T10:33:49
The line Engine reported j64 instead of j64avx. Previous beta seemed
provided avx binaries. Your cpu does support avx and supposed to be
incapable of running j806 binary.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 2:17 PM, J
17 matches
Mail list logo
