in reply to
Generate the perl sequence 1, 11, 111, ....
What if
1, 11, 111, 1111, 11111, ....
is meant to be a sequence of numbers?
use POSIX;
my $number = 1;
while ($number <= POSIX::ULONG_MAX) {
print "$number, ";
$number *= 10;
$number++;
}
print '...';
Re: Numerically generate the perl sequence 1, 11, 111, .... by moritz (Cardinal) on Oct 12, 2008 at 09:44 UTC 
What if
1, 11, 111, 1111, 11111, ....
is meant to be a sequence of numbers?
Then there's nothing wrong with generating them as strings, because perl will automatically convert between these two as needed.
 [reply] [d/l] 

Well, but the conversion costs something. So in Perl 6, if you're worried about efficiency, you'd probably write it like this:
1,11,111,1111 ... { $^prev * 10 + 1 }
Unless we can make the "whatever" version intuit such an algebraic relationship, in which case it would just be:
1,11,111,111 ... *
Just how far we could/should drive the intuition of the series operator is an interesting question.  [reply] [d/l] [select] 

It shouldn't be too hard to make this work.
By simply looking at the sequence of the pairwise difference and ratio and correlating them to the original sequence or a constant, you can get good guesses for most commonly used sequences, if you just allow a few levels of recursion:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
differences 1, 1, 1, 1 # constant
1, 2, 4, 8, 16
ratios: 2, 2, 2, 2 # constant
1, 2, 3, 5, 8
differences: 1, 2, 3, 5 # sames as original shifted by one
1, 11, 111, 1111, 11111
differences: 10, 100, 1000, 10000
ratios: 10, 10, 10 # constant
The fibonacci sequence is the only one example that needs autocorrelating. Other ones that could use the autocorrelation are 1, 1, 1, 1, ... and 0, 1, 0, 1, ....
In case of ambiguousness the solution with the shallowest recursion would win.
I'll try to come up with a prototype implementation that can be used as basis for a specification. But it won't be this or the next week, so have a little patience ;)
Ideally there would be some sub or method that can be overridden to detect sequences if the builtin mechanism fails..
 [reply] [d/l] [select] 



Unless we can make the "whatever" version intuit such an algebraic relationship, in which case it would just be:
1,11,111,111 ... *
Just how far we could/should drive the intuition of the series operator is an interesting question.
I personally believe that however appealing at first sight, it would be kinda too much! When the layman, or even the Physics doctor asks: "which is the next term after 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21?" expecting his audience either to recocgnize the Fibonacci numbers or not to know about them, and then to blow their minds with explanations about them... the mathematician would answer: "42" In fact, given any number one can devise a rule by which the latter can be obtained from the former ones. Of course, one would want an "easy" rule. But the problem is that that "easy" is just as much as psychologically appealing as difficult to be mathematically defined.
Thus, the question is either devoid of any sensible answer, or one should restrict himself a priori to some predefined class of rules, e.g. to linear recurrencies, and to establish an unambiguous relationship of simplicity within that class, to allow one to be picked up automatically.
Alternatively, or better, in addition, one may allow other classes to be specified by means of a suitable adverb, e.g.
1,11,111,1111, ... * :polyinomially
But do we really want to make such a big subset of Perl 6 into what that seems a generic Mathematics tool?
 [reply] [d/l] [select] 

Just how far we could/should drive the intuition of the series operator is an interesting question.
It would be nice if it knew as much as the OnLine Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences in some way or another. The perl5 sources carry the Unicode database around  perhaps the perl6 source could carry the OEIS database. ;)
 [reply] 





