Re: Detect if third word in string contains a number
Re: Detect if third word in string contains a number
- Subject: Re: Detect if third word in string contains a number
- From: Emmanuel LEVY <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 13:49:36 +0200
I confirm.
We would really need the probability curve of the ages you expect. If, say, your users peak around 115 y.o. I would prefer Nigel's string.
Mine was obtained by a script 20 times longer than Nigel's. The script searches if a different sort - instead of "from 120 to 1 by -1" - makes a better job and the answer is yes, 9 by 9 is better, as you may have guessed already: "... 93847566...". Also my version tests whether you have to strictly do "digits & i" or if appending one digit only out of two (or 2 out of 3) might be enough.
Best,
Emmanuel
On May 8, 2012, at 11:31 PM, Nigel Garvey wrote:
> theDaniel wrote on Mon, 07 May 2012 19:43:49 -0400:
>
>> Please tell me about these long numbers. Do you get them from the
>> number 12? Would they work for varying numbers? Say, anywhere from 1
>> thru 150?
>
> They contain all the numbers from 1 to 120, overlapped so as to require
> fewer digits. I derived mine with a simple script:
>
> set digits to ""
> repeat with i from 120 to 1 by -1
> if digits does not contain (i as text) then set digits to digits & i
> end repeat
>
> digits
> --> "12011911811711611511411311211111010910810710610510410310210099989796959493929088878685848382807776757473727066656463626055545352504443424033323022"
>
> I then manually removed two unnecessary "1"s from the "11111" sequence
> and totally missed the possibility of cutting one digit each from "999",
> "888", "777", "666", "555", "444", and "333".
>
> I don't know if Emmanuel derived his excellent string
> "10921112010293847566574839301191101181008273645546372811710899011610798
> 06253443526115106978870114105960423324113104958677685010394022" from
> mine or whether he just happened to know a better algorithm. It makes
> better use of overlap than mine does and contains thirteen fewer
> characters. (It would only be six fewer if I'd noticed "999" etc.) For
> obvious reasons, it takes AppleScript slightly less time to locate a
> sequence near the beginning of a string than it does one near the end.
> SInce the end of Emmanuel's string is slightly nearer its beginning than
> is the end of mine, it's use is microscopically faster overall. However,
> since his numbers are in a different order from mine, which is faster in
> any particular instance depends on the number being tested.
>
>> Regarding example text "I am 12": The first "word" is roman number
>> one, two or three ("I", "II" or "III") The second "word" is always an
>> english word and the third "word", in this case, is always an arabic
>> number, which may vary up to 150. This is not someone's age as
>> someone commented earlier. Sorry to confuse the issue.
>
> You might enjoy this:
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaGpaj2nHIo>
>
> NG
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> AppleScript-Users mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> Archives: http://lists.apple.com/archives/applescript-users
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
AppleScript-Users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
Archives: http://lists.apple.com/archives/applescript-users
This email sent to email@hidden