Re: Re: Counting Runs

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg52032] Re: [mg52018] Re: Counting Runs*From*: DrBob <drbob at bigfoot.com>*Date*: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 03:13:11 -0500 (EST)*References*: <200411070603.BAA18066@smc.vnet.net>*Reply-to*: drbob at bigfoot.com*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Highlight any built-in (almost) and press the Help key, and you'll easily find out what it is. I have Needs["Statistics`"] in my Init.m file, so I never load or think about stat packages. I recommend you do the same. I do the same with graphics by including Needs["Graphics`"]. It saves a lot of time. >> Since this the same as one of your other suggestions, how can using this version of Frequencies be faster? I hadn't noticed they were the same; I assumed Frequencies was compiled and optimized. Looking back on the timings again, I notice brt4 and hanlonTreat are within 4% on the largest arrays, with neither of them always winning. They are the two fastest solvers, and the difference seem to be random noise. All that being so, I would use the version with Frequencies. Bobby On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 01:03:46 -0500 (EST), Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at earthlink.net> wrote: > > > On 11/6/04 at 2:08 AM, drbob at bigfoot.com (DrBob) wrote: > >> And the new winner -- for both speed and simplicity -- is: > >> brt4[v_List] := Frequencies@Split[v][[All, 1]] > > Where is the function Frequencies to be found? > > If it is the function found in Statistics`DataManipulation` then that is coded > > {Length[#],First[#]}&/@Split[Sort[list]] > > Since this the same as one of your other suggestions, how can using this version of Frequencies be faster? > -- > To reply via email subtract one hundred and four > > > > -- DrBob at bigfoot.com www.eclecticdreams.net

**References**:**Re: Counting Runs***From:*Bill Rowe <readnewsciv@earthlink.net>