search for: 0.0309

To whom it may concern: I am trying a factorial design a system of mine that has two factors. Each factor was set at four different levels, with one replication for each of the combinations. My data is as follows: A B Response 1 600 2.5 0.0257 2 600 2.5 0.0254 3 600 5

Dear Dr.Goslee and anyone may intrested in matrix manipulate, I am using your ecodist to do mantel and partial mantel test, I have locality data and shape variation data, and the two distance matrixs are given as belowings. When I run the analysis, it is always report that the matrix is not square, but I didn't know what's wrong with my data. Would you please help me on this. I am quite

Hi I have a very big data.frame : str(fslu12) 'data.frame': 277200 obs. of 11 variables: $ V1 : num 304 304 304 304 304 ... $ V2 : num 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 ... $ V3 : num 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 ... $ V4 : num 79.1 52 30.6 37.3 63 79.1 52 30.6 37.3 63 ... $ V5 : num 0.005 0.00498 0.00496 0.00491 0.00484 ... $ V6 : num 0.01 0.00997 0.00988 0.00969

Dear all, I'm using R 2.8.1 under Windows Vista on a dual core 2,4 GhZ with 4 GB of RAM. I'm trying to reproduce a result out of "Analysis of Financial Time Series" by Ruey Tsay. In R I'm using the fGarch library. After fitting a ar(3)-garch(1,1)-model > model<-garchFit(~arma(3,0)+garch(1,1), analyse) I'm saving the results via > result<-model

Dear All, I got a warning message "X matrix deemed to be singular" in Cox model with a time dependent coefficient. In my analysis, the variable "SEX" is a categorical variable which violate the PH assumption in Cox. I first used the survSplit() function to break the data set into different time intervals, and then fit the model. The procedures can be described as follows:

Dear useRs, I reran an analysis with bam (mgcv, version 1.7-17) originally conducted using an older version of bam (mgcv, version 1.7-11) and this resulted in the same estimates, but much lower standard errors (in some cases 20 times as low) and lower p-values. This obviously results in a larger set of significant predictors. Is this result expected given the improvements in the new version? Or

Hi, Sean: I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making a *BIG* change to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor change to populateLTOPassManager() by separating module-pass and non-module-passes, I saw quite a few performance difference, most of them are degradations. Attacking these degradations one by one in a piecemeal manner is wasting

Target: FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE on i386 autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: i386-unknown-freebsd6.2 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305 [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release build. llvm-gcc 4.2 from source.

Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got chance to list a detailed pass order for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations. This is wish-list in our mind: pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or just inline tiny func), get rid of all loop xforms... post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only

Hi all, I've started looking at the GlobalMerge pass, enabled by default on ARM and AArch64. I think we should reconsider that, at least for AArch64. As is, the pass just merges all globals together, in groups of 4KB (AArch64, 128B on ARM). At the time it was enabled, the general thinking was "it's almost free, it doesn't affect performance much, we might as well use it".

LLVMers, The 2.2 prerelease is now available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.2/ If anyone can help test this release, I ask that you do the following: 1) Build llvm and llvm-gcc (or use a binary). You may build release (default) or debug. You may pick llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, or both. 2) Run 'make check'. 3) In llvm-test, run 'make TEST=nightly report'. 4) When