@ Bill Lam
C-style. That's funny. I know just enough C to get around. It's not that I
dislike it, just never went in that direction.
I actually modeled my flip function after the hailstone example at the top
of Chapter 10 in Learning J:
http://www.jsoftware.com/help/learning/10.htm
halve =: -:
I guess, if I were implementing what I think you are trying to
implement, I might do it like this:
move_table=: <:(,|."1)(#~0<*/"1)~.,/,/_3&{.\@/:~"1(,|:"2)>|:((;|.)@(1++)+/)\i.5
flip=: ~: (i.15)&e.
legal_moves=: [ #~ 6 = 2 #. {
search=:3 :0
((15#1) flip y) search i.0 3
NB. x: board; y: moves
2) Is the move list associated with each board
3) Is the move path, also a list, you want returned (printed?) if you reach
a winning board state, i.e., just one peg remaining on the board.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Raul Miller wrote:
> What is the difference between 2 (a list of moves
Thank you for explanation. I think code will be easier to read
if you had written in a c-style, because your j-ish code is not
the J that I am familiar with. eg, the flip.
flip =: (~: 3 : 'if. ((< & 2) @: #) y do. ({ & id) y else. (+./ @: ({ & id)) y
end. ')
since +. is idempotent so there is no
What is the difference between 2 (a list of moves for the current
board) and 3 (a path list for the solution, initially empty) in this
description?
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Michael Rice wrote:
> The gap between J and most computer languages is pretty wide.
>
> Maybe t
@Raul Miller
Sorry about the typo.
It's pretty late now. Will revisit your message in the morning.
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
> > For example, what's the difference between
> >
> > 2 3 <@, 3 4 and 1 2 <@:, 3 4
> >
> > when the result is the same?
>
> Well... the result
The gap between J and most computer languages is pretty wide.
Maybe this will help.
The board, a noun, is represented by a 15 element binary array with 1s for
full positions and 0s for empty ones. It is initially all 1s. Id, a noun,
is a 15x15 identity matrix.
Function flip, given a board and po
That's a nice idea. Leads also to this rephrasing of that part:
|:((;|.)@(1++)+/)\i.5
Or, in context:
move_table=: <:(,|."1)(#~0<*/"1)~.,/,/_3&{.\@/:~"1(,|:"2)>|:((;|.)@(1++)+/)\i.5
flip=: ~: (i.15)&e.
legal_moves=: [ #~ 6 = 2 #. {
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Jose Mari
"There ought to be a more elegant way of building move_table,"
I would replace the fragment (,:|.&.>)(;1{.&.>~1+i.5)<;.1>:i.15 by
|:(>:@:(+/\)(;|.)@:+&><\)i.5 or, if you prefer, by
|:(>:@(+/\)(;|.)@:+&><\)i.5 .
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
> Actually, after furth
Actually, after further thought, I think I'd define some of your words this way:
move_table=:
<:(,|."1)(#~0<*/"1)~.,/,/_3&{.@/:~\"1(,|:"2)>(,:|.&.>)(;1{.&.>~1+i.5)<;.1>:i.15
flip=: ~: (i.15)&e.
legal_moves=: [ #~ 6 = 2 #. {
There ought to be a more elegant way of building move_table, but I'm
n
Actually, after further thought, I think I'd define some of your words this way:
move_table=:
<:(,|."1)(#~0<*/"1)~.,/,/_3&{.@/:~\"1(,|:"2)>(,:|.&.>)(;1{.&.>~1+i.5)<;.1>:i.15
flip=: ~: (i.15)&e.
legal_moves=: [ #~ 6 = 2 #. {
It seems like there ought to be a more elegant way of building
move_ta
> For example, what's the difference between
>
> 2 3 <@, 3 4 and 1 2 <@:, 3 4
>
> when the result is the same?
Well... the result is not the same here, because 2 3 is different from 1 2.
That said, <@, produces the same result as <@:, for the same
arguments. The difference between @ and @: would
I have difficulty in reading your code, perhaps you want to
make everything looks functional. To that end, you may
replace the if/then with @. (agenda)
(+./ @: ({ & id))`({ & id)@.((< & 2) @: #)
(untested and not sure if this is a simplication)
Вс, 04 июн 2017, Michael Rice написал(а):
> Two thi
Two things come to mind: 1) *reductio ad absurdum* and 2) a Dustin Hoffman
film, wherein he says to a man, "I going to explain something so you'll
understand it!" and then shoots him.
I already had a function that does what I needed (see below) but was musing
about left/right parameter style, when
Like this?
(#~ 5=2#.@:|])z
3 4 5
--
Raul
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Michael Rice wrote:
> How about
>1 0 1 0 1 0 (#~ ((-: & 0 1 0)"1 @: ({~ & z)))~ z
> ?
>
> Odd, that's the KISS way, the way that always works, and the one way I
> hadn't considered.
>
> On to your "simplifications
How about
1 0 1 0 1 0 (#~ ((-: & 0 1 0)"1 @: ({~ & z)))~ z
?
Odd, that's the KISS way, the way that always works, and the one way I
hadn't considered.
On to your "simplifications."
On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Louis de Forcrand wrote:
> How about
>1 0 1 0 1 0 (#~ ((-: & 0 1 0)"1 @:
How about
1 0 1 0 1 0 (#~ ((-: & 0 1 0)"1 @: ({~ & z)))~ z
?
You can then "simplify":
First the hook (and {~&z)
([ #~ -:&0 1 0"1@:(z&{)@])~
([ #~ -:&0 1 0"1@:(z&{)@])~
Then ~ can be "distributed" over the resulting fork:
[~ #~ -:&0 1 0"1@:(z&{)@(]~)
] #~ -:&0 1 0"1@:(z&{)@[
You can keep going
I would write the original as:
z ([ #~ 0 1 0 -:"1 {) 1 0 1 0 1 0
3 4 5
Then to reverse the arguments you could do one of the following:
1 0 1 0 1 0 ([ #~ 0 1 0 -:"1 {)~ z
3 4 5
1 0 1 0 1 0 (] #~ 0 1 0 -:"1 {~) z
3 4 5
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Michael Rice wrote:
>z
z =: 2 3 $ i.6
z
0 1 2
3 4 5
z { 1 0 1 0 1 0
1 0 1
0 1 0
(-: & 0 1 0) z { 1 0 1 0 1 0
0
(-: & 0 1 0)"1 z { 1 0 1 0 1 0
0 1
((-: & 0 1 0)"1 z { 1 0 1 0 1 0) # z
3 4 5
z #~ ((-: & 0 1 0)"1 z { 1 0 1 0 1 0)
3 4 5
z #~ ((-: & 0 1 0)"1 (1 0 1 0 1 0 {~ z))
3 4 5
z #~ ((-: & 0 1
19 matches
Mail list logo
