Why isn't the result 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ?
A=:'^'
B=:'^'
f=: 13 :'((|.|:|.4|+/~i.4),4|+/~i.4){y'
f A
v<^>
<^>v
^>v<
>v<^
^
^
v>^<
>^mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Lambert
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 9:40 AM
To: programming
Subject: [Jprogramming] ad
to see why, try this
B="1 f A
On Dec 15, 2015 7:57 PM, "Linda Alvord" wrote:
> Why isn't the result 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ?
>
> A=:'^'
>B=:'^'
>f=: 13 :'((|.|:|.4|+/~i.4),4|+/~i.4){y'
>f A
> v<^>
> <^>v
> ^>v<
> >v<^
> ^
> ^
> v>^<
> >^B-:"1 f A
> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>
> Linda
>
> -Ori
brute forcing. I considered using math/misc/amoeba, but wasn't sure if
it'd be a fit
odometer=:#: i.@(*/)
options=:(#~ (<&101)@:(+/"1)) odometer 101 101 101 101
arr=:;"1 (2,4,6,8,10) {"1 (<@(". :: (_"1))@((}:)^:(','={:)) );._1@('
'&,) every cutLF input
parts=: (((0"_)^:(0>])"0) @: (+/)@:(arr * ])
I'm curious how fast J is to write for someone who knows what they're
doing?
In AdventOfCode only the first 100 submissions make the leaderboard, so
speed is a premium. I dabble in J, but I'm *far* more comfortable in
LiveCode, and that's what I use for AdventOfCode, although I sometimes go
back
Geoff,
Great question. I will answer briefly but this question may be more
on-topic in chat, although reading the guidelines[1] your question is
relevant to your learning or programming in J, so I'll give it a shot.
To answer your question, I need to provide some structure to my
response. "How fa
Partitioning & inner product solve this.
Instead of a clever partitioning algorithm, I recognized the problem is
sufficiently small for my computer and used
{3#followed by copy of the items with sums less than 101, stitched to
whatever value would make the rank 1 sum come out to 100.
-
Raul wrote (in the original thread):
> Like this?
>
> cam=:2 :0
> u 5!:1<'v’
> )
>
> Am=:1 :0
> u cam
> )
Well …
I wrote:
> - It is tacit
Not having it tacit defeats the purpose of the exercise: extending our tacit
adverbial programming toolkit, so more J programs can be expressed mor
My solution,
in2 =. > ". leaf 2 5 8 11 {"1 ;:"1 ('-';'_') rplc~"1 a =. > cutLF wdclippaste
''
rperm =: [: >@:(4 : ' map =. x ~: y [ o =. x ,"1 y for_j. i. {: $ map do. o
=. o , (>:j) ({. , x , }.)"1 y #~ j{"1 map end. ~. o '&.>/) (a: -.~ [: ,
<"0@}./.~) , <@:({~ ([: (i.@! A. i.) #))@~.
N
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Dan Bron wrote:
> Raul wrote (in the original thread):
>> Like this?
>>
>> cam=:2 :0
>> u 5!:1<'v’
>> )
>>
>> Am=:1 :0
>> u cam
>> )
>
> Well …
>
> I wrote:
>
>> - It is tacit
>
> Not having it tacit defeats the purpose of the exercise: extending our taci
Raul wrote:
> Yeah... personally, I consider explicit code to be a subset of tacit code.
I think of explicit and tacit as two distinct but related languages. That “:”
is tacit doesn’t mean the programs written in it are tacit: I could
(theoretically) write a tacit Lisp interpreter, but that does
Dan writes:
"
Pepe wrote:
> PS. The adverb adv is intrinsically and proudly wicked; the writing a
> purist version of Adv is left as an easy exercise for the reader ;)
O, you almost had me, Pepe. You almost had me.
*continues on quest for Holy Grail*
"
Against my best judgement :), a purist
Darn! One "o" went through, make
a3=. (@: (aw f.)) ('av'f.)
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Dan writes:
> "
> Pepe wrote:
> > PS. The adverb adv is intrinsically and proudly wicked; the writing a
> > purist version of Adv is
> Against my best judgement :), a purist version of Adv follows,
> assert 1 4 9 -: 1 2 3 *: av
That’s so cool :)
At some point we’re going to have to put our heads together and create a JAL
addon to collect all these utilities.
Named F^4, of course.
-Dan
---
Thanks, however it was a capital v in B.
A=:'^'
B=:'^'
f=: 13 :'((|.|:|.4|+/~i.4),4|+/~i.4){y'
f A
v<^>
<^>v
^>v<
>v<^
^
^
v>^<
>^mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of bill lam
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 8:55 AM
To: Programming forum
Subject: Re: [Jprogrammin
14 matches
Mail list logo
