R help - Aug 2018 - Combinations of true/false values where one pair is mutually exclusive

> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:20 AM, R Stafford <rod.stafford at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > But I have the extra condition that if E is true, then F must be
false, and
> > vice versa, 
Question: Does 'vice versa' mean 
a) "if E is False, F must be True"
or
b) "if F is True, E must be False"?
... which are not the same.

b) (and mutual exclusivity in general) does not rule out the condition "E
False, F False", which would not be addressed by the
pass/fail equivalent equivalent of F <- !E




*******************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential. Any use...{{dropped:8}}

Thank you for pointing that out, I realize not only did I use the wrong
language but I did not describe the situation accurately.  I do need to
address the situation where both variables E and F actually pass, that is
the majority case, one or the other can fail, but there can never be a
situation where E and F both fail.  I do not know a specific term for that
situation, but you are correct that mutual exclusivity is wrong.   While I
can generate a list of all possible combinations with the expand.grid
function (which I am not committed to by the way), it would be very helpful
if I could exclude the combinations where E and F both fail.  I am not sure
where to go from here, but the solution does not have to be elegant or even
efficient because I do not need to scale higher than 6 variables.



On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:26 AM, S Ellison <S.Ellison at lgcgroup.com>
wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:20 AM, R Stafford <rod.stafford at
gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > But I have the extra condition that if E is true, then F must be
> false, and
> > > vice versa,
>
> Question: Does 'vice versa' mean
> a) "if E is False, F must be True"
> or
> b) "if F is True, E must be False"?
> ... which are not the same.
>
> b) (and mutual exclusivity in general) does not rule out the condition
"E
> False, F False", which would not be addressed by the
> pass/fail equivalent equivalent of F <- !E
>
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential. Any u...{{dropped:13}}

From what I can tell, the simplest way is to
   First generate all the combinations
   Then exclude those you don't want.

Here's an example, with only three variables (D, E, and F), that excludes
those where E and F both fail
> tmp <- c('p','f')
> X <- expand.grid(D=tmp, E=tmp, F=tmp)
> X <- subset(X, !(E=='f' & F=='f'))
> X
  D E F
1 p p p
2 f p p
3 p f p
4 f f p
5 p p f
6 f p f


--
Don MacQueen
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
7000 East Ave., L-627
Livermore, CA 94550
925-423-1062
Lab cell 925-724-7509
 
 

?On 8/2/18, 8:41 AM, "R-help on behalf of R Stafford"
<r-help-bounces at r-project.org on behalf of rod.stafford at gmail.com>
wrote:

    Thank you for pointing that out, I realize not only did I use the wrong
    language but I did not describe the situation accurately.  I do need to
    address the situation where both variables E and F actually pass, that is
    the majority case, one or the other can fail, but there can never be a
    situation where E and F both fail.  I do not know a specific term for that
    situation, but you are correct that mutual exclusivity is wrong.   While I
    can generate a list of all possible combinations with the expand.grid
    function (which I am not committed to by the way), it would be very helpful
    if I could exclude the combinations where E and F both fail.  I am not sure
    where to go from here, but the solution does not have to be elegant or even
    efficient because I do not need to scale higher than 6 variables.
    
    
    
    On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:26 AM, S Ellison <S.Ellison at lgcgroup.com>
wrote:
    
    > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:20 AM, R Stafford <rod.stafford at
gmail.com>
    > > wrote:
    > > > But I have the extra condition that if E is true, then F must
be
    > false, and
    > > > vice versa,
    >
    > Question: Does 'vice versa' mean
    > a) "if E is False, F must be True"
    > or
    > b) "if F is True, E must be False"?
    > ... which are not the same.
    >
    > b) (and mutual exclusivity in general) does not rule out the condition
"E
    > False, F False", which would not be addressed by the
    > pass/fail equivalent equivalent of F <- !E
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > *******************************************************************
    > This email and any attachments are confidential. Any u...{{dropped:13}}
    
    ______________________________________________
    R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
    https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
    PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
    and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.

Given that clarification, I'd just generate the full set and remove
the ones you aren't interested in, as in:


scenarios <- expand.grid(A = c("pass", "fail"), B =
c("pass", "fail"), C c("pass", "fail"),
D = c("pass", "fail"), E = c("pass",
"fail"), F c("pass", "fail"))


scenarios <- subset(scenarios, !(E == "fail" & F ==
"fail))

Sarah

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:41 AM, R Stafford <rod.stafford at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thank you for pointing that out, I realize not only did I use the wrong
> language but I did not describe the situation accurately.  I do need to
> address the situation where both variables E and F actually pass, that is
> the majority case, one or the other can fail, but there can never be a
> situation where E and F both fail.  I do not know a specific term for that
> situation, but you are correct that mutual exclusivity is wrong.   While I
> can generate a list of all possible combinations with the expand.grid
> function (which I am not committed to by the way), it would be very helpful
> if I could exclude the combinations where E and F both fail.  I am not sure
> where to go from here, but the solution does not have to be elegant or even
> efficient because I do not need to scale higher than 6 variables.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:26 AM, S Ellison <S.Ellison at lgcgroup.com>
wrote:
>
>> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:20 AM, R Stafford <rod.stafford at
gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > But I have the extra condition that if E is true, then F must
be
>> false, and
>> > > vice versa,
>>
>> Question: Does 'vice versa' mean
>> a) "if E is False, F must be True"
>> or
>> b) "if F is True, E must be False"?
>> ... which are not the same.
>>
>> b) (and mutual exclusivity in general) does not rule out the condition
"E
>> False, F False", which would not be addressed by the
>> pass/fail equivalent equivalent of F <- !E
>>
>>
>>