Terse Method to Swap Lowest for Highest? Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Efficient method for Inserting arrays into arraysSwap elements in list without copyBetter method to swap the values of two 2-D arraysHow to get this list with a terse methodBuilt-in (or Terse) Method to Combine and Transpose DatasetsAre there more readable and terse method can get this listefficiently method for generating a sequenceSimple method to sort versionsFunction for SortBySwap Elements of a continuous List, possible?

Should I call the interviewer directly, if HR aren't responding?

Gastric acid as a weapon

How can players work together to take actions that are otherwise impossible?

Right-skewed distribution with mean equals to mode?

G-Code for resetting to 100% speed

Is there a Spanish version of "dot your i's and cross your t's" that includes the letter 'ñ'?

What would be the ideal power source for a cybernetic eye?

Using et al. for a last / senior author rather than for a first author

Did Xerox really develop the first LAN?

What LEGO pieces have "real-world" functionality?

When to stop saving and start investing?

Models of set theory where not every set can be linearly ordered

Should gear shift center itself while in neutral?

When is phishing education going too far?

If a contract sometimes uses the wrong name, is it still valid?

What is the correct way to use the pinch test for dehydration?

The logistics of corpse disposal

How much radiation do nuclear physics experiments expose researchers to nowadays?

Why aren't air breathing engines used as small first stages

Are my PIs rude or am I just being too sensitive?

Java 8 stream max() function argument type Comparator vs Comparable

How does a Death Domain cleric's Touch of Death feature work with Touch-range spells delivered by familiars?

How discoverable are IPv6 addresses and AAAA names by potential attackers?

What happens to sewage if there is no river near by?



Terse Method to Swap Lowest for Highest?



Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Efficient method for Inserting arrays into arraysSwap elements in list without copyBetter method to swap the values of two 2-D arraysHow to get this list with a terse methodBuilt-in (or Terse) Method to Combine and Transpose DatasetsAre there more readable and terse method can get this listefficiently method for generating a sequenceSimple method to sort versionsFunction for SortBySwap Elements of a continuous List, possible?










12












$begingroup$


I have built a solution to swap the lowest values with the highest values in a list.



With



SeedRandom[987]
test = RandomSample@*Join @@ Range @@@ 6, 10, 56, 60, 1, 5, -5, -1



-1, 2, 7, 8, 60, 57, 58, 10, 9, 4, -5, -3, 3, 59, 1, 5, -4, 6, -2, 56



Then



swapPositions =
PermutationReplace[
Ordering@Ordering@test,
With[len = Length@test,
Cycles@
Transpose@Range @@ 1, Floor[len/2], Reverse@*Range @@ Ceiling[len/2] + 1, len
]
];

Sort[test][[swapPositions]]



56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1



The largest half of the numbers have had their positions swapped with lowest half of the numbers.



However, it feels too verbose and I think Sort might be expensive in this case. Is there a built-in function or more terse method to achieve this. Of course with no loss in speed. The actual case is for list of length 100000 and more.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    12












    $begingroup$


    I have built a solution to swap the lowest values with the highest values in a list.



    With



    SeedRandom[987]
    test = RandomSample@*Join @@ Range @@@ 6, 10, 56, 60, 1, 5, -5, -1



    -1, 2, 7, 8, 60, 57, 58, 10, 9, 4, -5, -3, 3, 59, 1, 5, -4, 6, -2, 56



    Then



    swapPositions =
    PermutationReplace[
    Ordering@Ordering@test,
    With[len = Length@test,
    Cycles@
    Transpose@Range @@ 1, Floor[len/2], Reverse@*Range @@ Ceiling[len/2] + 1, len
    ]
    ];

    Sort[test][[swapPositions]]



    56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1



    The largest half of the numbers have had their positions swapped with lowest half of the numbers.



    However, it feels too verbose and I think Sort might be expensive in this case. Is there a built-in function or more terse method to achieve this. Of course with no loss in speed. The actual case is for list of length 100000 and more.










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      12












      12








      12





      $begingroup$


      I have built a solution to swap the lowest values with the highest values in a list.



      With



      SeedRandom[987]
      test = RandomSample@*Join @@ Range @@@ 6, 10, 56, 60, 1, 5, -5, -1



      -1, 2, 7, 8, 60, 57, 58, 10, 9, 4, -5, -3, 3, 59, 1, 5, -4, 6, -2, 56



      Then



      swapPositions =
      PermutationReplace[
      Ordering@Ordering@test,
      With[len = Length@test,
      Cycles@
      Transpose@Range @@ 1, Floor[len/2], Reverse@*Range @@ Ceiling[len/2] + 1, len
      ]
      ];

      Sort[test][[swapPositions]]



      56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1



      The largest half of the numbers have had their positions swapped with lowest half of the numbers.



      However, it feels too verbose and I think Sort might be expensive in this case. Is there a built-in function or more terse method to achieve this. Of course with no loss in speed. The actual case is for list of length 100000 and more.










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I have built a solution to swap the lowest values with the highest values in a list.



      With



      SeedRandom[987]
      test = RandomSample@*Join @@ Range @@@ 6, 10, 56, 60, 1, 5, -5, -1



      -1, 2, 7, 8, 60, 57, 58, 10, 9, 4, -5, -3, 3, 59, 1, 5, -4, 6, -2, 56



      Then



      swapPositions =
      PermutationReplace[
      Ordering@Ordering@test,
      With[len = Length@test,
      Cycles@
      Transpose@Range @@ 1, Floor[len/2], Reverse@*Range @@ Ceiling[len/2] + 1, len
      ]
      ];

      Sort[test][[swapPositions]]



      56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1



      The largest half of the numbers have had their positions swapped with lowest half of the numbers.



      However, it feels too verbose and I think Sort might be expensive in this case. Is there a built-in function or more terse method to achieve this. Of course with no loss in speed. The actual case is for list of length 100000 and more.







      list-manipulation performance-tuning sorting permutation






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Mar 23 at 2:15









      J. M. is away

      98.9k10311467




      98.9k10311467










      asked Mar 22 at 20:57









      EdmundEdmund

      26.7k330103




      26.7k330103




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          15












          $begingroup$

          How about:



          Module[tmp = test,
          With[ord=Ordering[tmp],
          tmp[[ord]] = Reverse @ tmp[[ord]]];
          tmp
          ]



          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1







          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            That is so obvious I want to cry. Thanks (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 22 at 21:15


















          7












          $begingroup$

          This is equivalent to Carl's procedure, except that it uses one less scratch list:



          With[ord = Ordering[test],
          test[[PermutationProduct[Reverse[ord], InversePermutation[ord]]]]]
          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1


          Recall that list[[perm]] = list is equivalent to list = list[[InversePermutation[perm]]], where perm is a permutation list. (The situation is equivalent to list.pmat being the same as Transpose[pmat].list if pmat is a permutation matrix.) You can then use PermutationProduct[] to compose successive permutations.



          (This was supposed to be a comment, but it got too long.)






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            This solution doesn't copy the list so may be faster than Carl's. (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 23 at 3:38










          • $begingroup$
            FWIW, I consistently get 56, -2, 6, -4, 5, 1, 59, 3, -3, -5, 4, 9, 10, 58, 57, 60, 8, 7, 2, -1 from this.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:01











          • $begingroup$
            @Rabbit, what version number of Mathematica is giving that result?
            $endgroup$
            – J. M. is away
            Mar 23 at 16:10










          • $begingroup$
            11.3.0.0 (5944644, 2018030701) Win 10. I did a trace, which might have had the needed info but I didn't catch it. Started w/ fresh kernel, & repeated, w/ same result. Baffled.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:16






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            At least on my machine, the questioner's original (very verbose) proposed solution is faster than any other proposal. In order of presentation: 0.0000114366 v. 0.0000357762 v. 0.0000164219 (AbsoluteTiming in seconds).
            $endgroup$
            – CElliott
            Apr 3 at 14:10












          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "387"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f193790%2fterse-method-to-swap-lowest-for-highest%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          15












          $begingroup$

          How about:



          Module[tmp = test,
          With[ord=Ordering[tmp],
          tmp[[ord]] = Reverse @ tmp[[ord]]];
          tmp
          ]



          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1







          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            That is so obvious I want to cry. Thanks (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 22 at 21:15















          15












          $begingroup$

          How about:



          Module[tmp = test,
          With[ord=Ordering[tmp],
          tmp[[ord]] = Reverse @ tmp[[ord]]];
          tmp
          ]



          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1







          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            That is so obvious I want to cry. Thanks (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 22 at 21:15













          15












          15








          15





          $begingroup$

          How about:



          Module[tmp = test,
          With[ord=Ordering[tmp],
          tmp[[ord]] = Reverse @ tmp[[ord]]];
          tmp
          ]



          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1







          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          How about:



          Module[tmp = test,
          With[ord=Ordering[tmp],
          tmp[[ord]] = Reverse @ tmp[[ord]]];
          tmp
          ]



          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1








          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Mar 22 at 21:11









          Carl WollCarl Woll

          74.2k398193




          74.2k398193







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            That is so obvious I want to cry. Thanks (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 22 at 21:15












          • 1




            $begingroup$
            That is so obvious I want to cry. Thanks (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 22 at 21:15







          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          That is so obvious I want to cry. Thanks (+1).
          $endgroup$
          – Edmund
          Mar 22 at 21:15




          $begingroup$
          That is so obvious I want to cry. Thanks (+1).
          $endgroup$
          – Edmund
          Mar 22 at 21:15











          7












          $begingroup$

          This is equivalent to Carl's procedure, except that it uses one less scratch list:



          With[ord = Ordering[test],
          test[[PermutationProduct[Reverse[ord], InversePermutation[ord]]]]]
          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1


          Recall that list[[perm]] = list is equivalent to list = list[[InversePermutation[perm]]], where perm is a permutation list. (The situation is equivalent to list.pmat being the same as Transpose[pmat].list if pmat is a permutation matrix.) You can then use PermutationProduct[] to compose successive permutations.



          (This was supposed to be a comment, but it got too long.)






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            This solution doesn't copy the list so may be faster than Carl's. (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 23 at 3:38










          • $begingroup$
            FWIW, I consistently get 56, -2, 6, -4, 5, 1, 59, 3, -3, -5, 4, 9, 10, 58, 57, 60, 8, 7, 2, -1 from this.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:01











          • $begingroup$
            @Rabbit, what version number of Mathematica is giving that result?
            $endgroup$
            – J. M. is away
            Mar 23 at 16:10










          • $begingroup$
            11.3.0.0 (5944644, 2018030701) Win 10. I did a trace, which might have had the needed info but I didn't catch it. Started w/ fresh kernel, & repeated, w/ same result. Baffled.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:16






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            At least on my machine, the questioner's original (very verbose) proposed solution is faster than any other proposal. In order of presentation: 0.0000114366 v. 0.0000357762 v. 0.0000164219 (AbsoluteTiming in seconds).
            $endgroup$
            – CElliott
            Apr 3 at 14:10
















          7












          $begingroup$

          This is equivalent to Carl's procedure, except that it uses one less scratch list:



          With[ord = Ordering[test],
          test[[PermutationProduct[Reverse[ord], InversePermutation[ord]]]]]
          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1


          Recall that list[[perm]] = list is equivalent to list = list[[InversePermutation[perm]]], where perm is a permutation list. (The situation is equivalent to list.pmat being the same as Transpose[pmat].list if pmat is a permutation matrix.) You can then use PermutationProduct[] to compose successive permutations.



          (This was supposed to be a comment, but it got too long.)






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            This solution doesn't copy the list so may be faster than Carl's. (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 23 at 3:38










          • $begingroup$
            FWIW, I consistently get 56, -2, 6, -4, 5, 1, 59, 3, -3, -5, 4, 9, 10, 58, 57, 60, 8, 7, 2, -1 from this.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:01











          • $begingroup$
            @Rabbit, what version number of Mathematica is giving that result?
            $endgroup$
            – J. M. is away
            Mar 23 at 16:10










          • $begingroup$
            11.3.0.0 (5944644, 2018030701) Win 10. I did a trace, which might have had the needed info but I didn't catch it. Started w/ fresh kernel, & repeated, w/ same result. Baffled.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:16






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            At least on my machine, the questioner's original (very verbose) proposed solution is faster than any other proposal. In order of presentation: 0.0000114366 v. 0.0000357762 v. 0.0000164219 (AbsoluteTiming in seconds).
            $endgroup$
            – CElliott
            Apr 3 at 14:10














          7












          7








          7





          $begingroup$

          This is equivalent to Carl's procedure, except that it uses one less scratch list:



          With[ord = Ordering[test],
          test[[PermutationProduct[Reverse[ord], InversePermutation[ord]]]]]
          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1


          Recall that list[[perm]] = list is equivalent to list = list[[InversePermutation[perm]]], where perm is a permutation list. (The situation is equivalent to list.pmat being the same as Transpose[pmat].list if pmat is a permutation matrix.) You can then use PermutationProduct[] to compose successive permutations.



          (This was supposed to be a comment, but it got too long.)






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          This is equivalent to Carl's procedure, except that it uses one less scratch list:



          With[ord = Ordering[test],
          test[[PermutationProduct[Reverse[ord], InversePermutation[ord]]]]]
          56, 9, 4, 3, -5, -2, -3, 1, 2, 7, 60, 58, 8, -4, 10, 6, 59, 5, 57, -1


          Recall that list[[perm]] = list is equivalent to list = list[[InversePermutation[perm]]], where perm is a permutation list. (The situation is equivalent to list.pmat being the same as Transpose[pmat].list if pmat is a permutation matrix.) You can then use PermutationProduct[] to compose successive permutations.



          (This was supposed to be a comment, but it got too long.)







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Mar 23 at 2:27

























          answered Mar 23 at 2:14









          J. M. is awayJ. M. is away

          98.9k10311467




          98.9k10311467











          • $begingroup$
            This solution doesn't copy the list so may be faster than Carl's. (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 23 at 3:38










          • $begingroup$
            FWIW, I consistently get 56, -2, 6, -4, 5, 1, 59, 3, -3, -5, 4, 9, 10, 58, 57, 60, 8, 7, 2, -1 from this.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:01











          • $begingroup$
            @Rabbit, what version number of Mathematica is giving that result?
            $endgroup$
            – J. M. is away
            Mar 23 at 16:10










          • $begingroup$
            11.3.0.0 (5944644, 2018030701) Win 10. I did a trace, which might have had the needed info but I didn't catch it. Started w/ fresh kernel, & repeated, w/ same result. Baffled.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:16






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            At least on my machine, the questioner's original (very verbose) proposed solution is faster than any other proposal. In order of presentation: 0.0000114366 v. 0.0000357762 v. 0.0000164219 (AbsoluteTiming in seconds).
            $endgroup$
            – CElliott
            Apr 3 at 14:10

















          • $begingroup$
            This solution doesn't copy the list so may be faster than Carl's. (+1).
            $endgroup$
            – Edmund
            Mar 23 at 3:38










          • $begingroup$
            FWIW, I consistently get 56, -2, 6, -4, 5, 1, 59, 3, -3, -5, 4, 9, 10, 58, 57, 60, 8, 7, 2, -1 from this.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:01











          • $begingroup$
            @Rabbit, what version number of Mathematica is giving that result?
            $endgroup$
            – J. M. is away
            Mar 23 at 16:10










          • $begingroup$
            11.3.0.0 (5944644, 2018030701) Win 10. I did a trace, which might have had the needed info but I didn't catch it. Started w/ fresh kernel, & repeated, w/ same result. Baffled.
            $endgroup$
            – Christopher Lamb
            Mar 23 at 16:16






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            At least on my machine, the questioner's original (very verbose) proposed solution is faster than any other proposal. In order of presentation: 0.0000114366 v. 0.0000357762 v. 0.0000164219 (AbsoluteTiming in seconds).
            $endgroup$
            – CElliott
            Apr 3 at 14:10
















          $begingroup$
          This solution doesn't copy the list so may be faster than Carl's. (+1).
          $endgroup$
          – Edmund
          Mar 23 at 3:38




          $begingroup$
          This solution doesn't copy the list so may be faster than Carl's. (+1).
          $endgroup$
          – Edmund
          Mar 23 at 3:38












          $begingroup$
          FWIW, I consistently get 56, -2, 6, -4, 5, 1, 59, 3, -3, -5, 4, 9, 10, 58, 57, 60, 8, 7, 2, -1 from this.
          $endgroup$
          – Christopher Lamb
          Mar 23 at 16:01





          $begingroup$
          FWIW, I consistently get 56, -2, 6, -4, 5, 1, 59, 3, -3, -5, 4, 9, 10, 58, 57, 60, 8, 7, 2, -1 from this.
          $endgroup$
          – Christopher Lamb
          Mar 23 at 16:01













          $begingroup$
          @Rabbit, what version number of Mathematica is giving that result?
          $endgroup$
          – J. M. is away
          Mar 23 at 16:10




          $begingroup$
          @Rabbit, what version number of Mathematica is giving that result?
          $endgroup$
          – J. M. is away
          Mar 23 at 16:10












          $begingroup$
          11.3.0.0 (5944644, 2018030701) Win 10. I did a trace, which might have had the needed info but I didn't catch it. Started w/ fresh kernel, & repeated, w/ same result. Baffled.
          $endgroup$
          – Christopher Lamb
          Mar 23 at 16:16




          $begingroup$
          11.3.0.0 (5944644, 2018030701) Win 10. I did a trace, which might have had the needed info but I didn't catch it. Started w/ fresh kernel, & repeated, w/ same result. Baffled.
          $endgroup$
          – Christopher Lamb
          Mar 23 at 16:16




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          At least on my machine, the questioner's original (very verbose) proposed solution is faster than any other proposal. In order of presentation: 0.0000114366 v. 0.0000357762 v. 0.0000164219 (AbsoluteTiming in seconds).
          $endgroup$
          – CElliott
          Apr 3 at 14:10





          $begingroup$
          At least on my machine, the questioner's original (very verbose) proposed solution is faster than any other proposal. In order of presentation: 0.0000114366 v. 0.0000357762 v. 0.0000164219 (AbsoluteTiming in seconds).
          $endgroup$
          – CElliott
          Apr 3 at 14:10


















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematica Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f193790%2fterse-method-to-swap-lowest-for-highest%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

          Bunad

          Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum