Much better than the one I came up with.
I found removing the parentheses around (_0.1) made it even clearer.
On 11 Dec 2015, at 2:55, Joe Bogner wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Ryan Eckbo
wrote:
Also someone could probably write a clever verb to generate the table.
I don't know
Very nice, thank you for the improvements. I realised I don't need
state 0
for this particular problem, but the '1+' solution is good to know. I'm
also going to remember the '[X]' trick (crazy!).
On 11 Dec 2015, at 2:19, Raul Miller wrote:
I would be tempted to express your S like this:
SM=
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Ryan Eckbo wrote:
Also someone could probably write a clever verb to generate the table.
>>
I don't know if it's clever, but here's one that matches Raul's input matrix
(|@((_0.1)&+)@{. , ] ) |: (10 10 $ _0.2,(10 # 0)) + (i.10) +/ (10 # 0.2)
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4
I would be tempted to express your S like this:
SM=: 0 10#: 10* 1+ ".;._2 noun define
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1NB. initial
0.0 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2NB. 0
0.2 1.0 2.2 3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2NB. 1
0.2 1.2 2.
A previous advent answer got me thinking about state machines, so I
wrote
one for this problem. The extra initial state ruins the natural
mapping
between states and numbers, but I think it's unavoidable? Also someone
could probably write a clever verb to generate the table.
NB. state machin
