Why is For/While loop Iteration I32?

[ps293]

Thanks a lot.

Now,i have made the final program which can do amplitude-scaling,time shifting and time-scaling as well.I have used a kind of bottom-up approach.As of now i have used all elementary functions but i wanted to simplify it further by either reducing blocks or something else that you may suggest.

[RavensFan]

Look at the functions in the Numeric palette.

There is a "negate" function (-x) that you can use instead of multiplying by a -1.

There is a "reciprocal" function 1/x that you can use instead of literally taking 1 and dividing by your value.

[JÞB]

---

@RavensFan wrote:

Look at the functions in the Numeric palette.

There is a "negate" function (-x) that you can use instead of multiplying by a -1.

There is a "reciprocal" function 1/x that you can use instead of literally taking 1 and dividing by your value.

---

Actually, I'd like to go a bit further down the path RavensFan started you on.

For those of you without a viewable copy here is the "Code of current discourse":

A ctrl+U and some alignment from the source were taken.

Some might ask why go and mess with this "Working" Code.   Primarially "Why equalls em ex plus bee"  but there are a few other nasty things going on that could make you think.  (Although, modern LabVIEW compilers are forgiving)  so let me re-write that snipette.

I doubt HIGHLY that this is what you want!  but simplifying your code to migrate loop invarient calculations and resolve tautologies yields this snip:

[altenbach]

---

Jeff·Þ·Bohrer wrote:

---

That express VI just needs to go!

Here's what I would probably do... 😉 (not fully verified for correct operation)

[JÞB]

I knew there was more available

(No surprise to me who found some.) although there is something still there (Sign[B] didn't really work and Christian might be closer with his code but 1x^[0,1]=[1,1]  so Re = 0 as a constant?

Did CA just code a bug?

[crossrulz]

---

altenbach wrote:

Here's what I would probably do... 😉 (not fully verified for correct operation)

---

I was just waiting for somebody to put out the Ramp function.  I just didn't want to go there yet with the OP.

[altenbach]

---

@JÞB wrote:

I knew there was more available

(No surprise to me who found some.) although there is something still there (Sign[B] didn't really work and Christian might be closer with his code but 1x^[0,1]=[1,1]  so Re = 0 as a constant?

Did CA just code a bug?

---

I coded  [0|1] x 2^1 = [0|2] (multiplications/divisions by integer powers of 2 are just bit shifts, which are very efficient. :D)

[JÞB]

---

@altenbach wrote:

---

@JÞB wrote:

I knew there was more available

(No surprise to me who found some.) although there is something still there (Sign[B] didn't really work and Christian might be closer with his code but 1x^[0,1]=[1,1]  so Re = 0 as a constant?

Did CA just code a bug?

---

I coded  [0|1] x 2^1 = [0|2] (multiplications/divisions by integer powers of 2 are just bit shifts, which are very efficient. :D)

---

I suspected that I read that wrong