Am I just doing something silly? Or does @. really not support building trains
when the right operand is a verb? Here is an overly minimal example of what I
want:
(1:)`+`(1:)@.(0 1 2) 0
2
(1:)`+`(1:)@.(0 1 2"_) 0
|rank error
| (1:)`+`(1:)@.(0 1 2"_)0
This is an obv
X =: (&{::)(@:[)
delitem =: ;@:((1 X {. ]) ; (0 X + 1 X) }. ]) NB. len idx :X str :Y
delitemG =: delitem^:(#@] >: +/@[) NB. guarded: do nothing if out of bounds
(delitemG~ 2, 0 i.~ 2&(+/\))(^:_) 1 3 _3 3 5
1 3 5
On Friday, December 6, 2019, 07:09:57 p.m. EST, Henry Rich
wrote:
join =: 4 : 0
neq =. (- |. x) i.&0@:=&((x <.&# y)&{.) y NB. len of max prefix of y
that matches suffix of x
((-neq)}.x) , neq}.y
)
ddup =. (({. join&$: }.)~ <.@-:@#)^:(1<#)NB. split & recur
ddup 2 1 1 _1 2 _2 _1
2
Henry Rich
On 12/6/2019 6:26 PM, Louis de Forcrand wrote:
Not parti
Not particularly J-ish, but (array-shuffling aside) linear solution:
s=: ,`(1}.])@.(= -@{.)/
s 1 _1 2 _2{~100?.@#4
2 1 2 1 _2 _1 2 1 1 2 2 2 _1 2 _1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 _2 _1 2 1 _2 _1 _2 _2 _2 _2 _1
_2 _1 _1 _2 _2 1 1 1 2 1 _2 1 _2 _1 _1 _1 2
Since the reduced form of the input list is unique,
If the answer to Jimmy's question is no, then the uniqueness of the resulting
array has to do (surprisingly) with free groups
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_group).
Indeed we can view a vector of numbers as a word over the alphabet [0,∞) of
positive real numbers (where negative numbers / ze
The result from 1 3 _3 3 5 should be 1 3 5.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 5:36 PM Jimmy Gauvin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> is the expected output of transforming 1 3 _3 3 5 to be 1 3 5 or 1 5 ?
>
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 7:15 AM R.E. Boss wrote:
>
> > Given an array with zero or more annihila
Hi,
is the expected output of transforming 1 3 _3 3 5 to be 1 3 5 or 1 5 ?
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 7:15 AM R.E. Boss wrote:
> Given an array with zero or more annihilating pairs, i.e., two subsequent
> numbers which add up to zero, the question is to clean up the array by
> deleting all annihila
Actually, my approach did not properly handle cases which should give
an empty result or length 1 result.
Fixed version:
an0=: 2#0~:_2 +/\ ]
fix=: ^:(1<#)
an1=: ({.,(#~ an0)@}.@}:,{:)fix@(#~ an0)fix
an2=: an1^:_
#an2 1 _1 1 _1
0
an2 3
3
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 a
(#~ (+: |.!.0)@([: >/\. 0 ,~ 0 = 2&(+/\)))^:_ ] 1 _1 2 _2{~100?.@#4
2 1 2 1 _2 _1 2 1 1 2 2 2 _1 2 _1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 _2 _1 2 1 _2 _1 _2 _2 _2
_2 _1 _2 _1 _1 _2 _2 1 1 1 2 1 _2 1 _2 _1 _1 _1 2
Henry Rich
On 12/6/2019 2:24 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
Here's one approach:
an0=: 2#0~:_2 +/\ ]
Here's one approach:
an0=: 2#0~:_2 +/\ ]
an1=: ({.,(#~ an0)@}.@}:,{:)@(#~ an0)
an2=: an1^:_
an2 1 _1 2 _2{~100?.@#4
2 1 2 1 _2 _1 2 1 1 2 2 2 _1 2 _1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 _2 _1 2 1 _2 _1 _2 _2
_2 _2 _1 _2 _1 _1 _2 _2 1 1 1 2 1 _2 1 _2 _1 _1 _1 2
#an2 1 _1 2 _2{~100?.@#4
50
I have not conv
Given an array with zero or more annihilating pairs, i.e., two subsequent
numbers which add up to zero, the question is to clean up the array by deleting
all annihilating pairs such that no such pairs are left.
I do have a solution that is both elegant and efficient (I believe), but I am
curious
11 matches
Mail list logo
