Here's a little variation. Fibonacci series begins 1 1 ...
Y=: ($:`)(`:6)
N=: 1 :'(u@:<:@:<: + [:u<:)^:(1 < ])'
N=: (5!:1)<'N'
}.N Y("0) i.11
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55
Maybe there is a better way to drop the 0.
Linda
-Original Message-
From: Programming On Behalf Of Linda
Alvord
Sent:
Jose, Somehow this surprised me.
Y=: ($:`)(`:6)
N=: 1 :'(u@:<:@:<: + u@:<:)^:(1 < ])'
P=: (5!:1)<'N'
P Y("0) i.11
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55
Y
($:`)(`:6)
N
1 : '(u@:<:@:<: + u@:<:)^:(1 < ])'
P
┌┐
│┌─┬──
I am afraid there must be a misunderstanding somewhere. Tacit entities are
stateless but some non-tacit entities can be stateless as well (e.g.,
neither my version of the Y combinator (renamed as X), which I was
discussing in my post trailing below, nor the adverbs which its arguments
represented,
:)
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:49 AM David Lambert wrote:
> Wonderful example. I might be able to explain to someone else!
>
> On 11/29/18 7:00 AM, programming-requ...@forums.jsoftware.com wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 17:17:24 -0500
> > From: Jose Mario Quintana
> > To:programm...@jsoftware
Defining what $: refers to is hard to put into a definition, but I can
tell you what the interpreter does.
During every execution of a verb there is a definition of what $: will
mean if it is encountered. The value of $: is set (and the previous
value pushed onto a stack) in 2 cases:
1. A n
Wonderful example. I might be able to explain to someone else!
On 11/29/18 7:00 AM, programming-requ...@forums.jsoftware.com wrote:
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 17:17:24 -0500
From: Jose Mario Quintana
To:programm...@jsoftware.com
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Recursive verbs
Message-ID:
Conte
All,
Thanks so much for all the examples of ways to generate the series I
defined. I'm not very proficient in all the nuances of implicit
expressions, so I am taking my time to work through each one, to try to get
better at it. Here are some of my favorites:
Mike Day:
fe =: 4 : '|(-@<:@+:)^:( *
Yes, sorry... transcription problem. As I said, it does x + 2y,
Mike
Please reply to mike_liz@tiscali.co.uk.
Sent from my iPad
> On 29 Nov 2018, at 10:31, Martin Kreuzer wrote:
>
> Mike -
> (having followed only loosely) shouldn't this 'hook' read
> h=: + +:
> ?
> -M
>
> At 2018-11
Mike -
(having followed only loosely) shouldn't this 'hook' read
h=: + +:
?
-M
At 2018-11-28 23:05, you wrote:
Thanks, though I think Cliffâs approach is more advanced.
Noticing that your g is applied with ~, you can also use this âhookâ
h =: + +
which does x + 2y
Also, you ca
