search for: 0.1336

require(randomForest) rf.pred<-predict(fit, valid, type="prob") > rf.pred[1:20, ] 0 1 16 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.3158 0.6842 43 0.3030 0.6970 52 0.0886 0.9114 55 0.1216 0.8784 75 0.0920 0.9080 82 0.4332 0.5668 120 0.2302 0.7698 128 0.1336 0.8664 147 0.4272 0.5728 148 0.0490 0.9510 153 0.0556 0.9444 161 0.0760 0.9240 162 0.4564 0.5436 172 0.5148 0.4852 176 0.1730

Hello all R-users _question 1_ I need to make a statistical model and respective ANOVA table but I get distinct results for the T-test (in summary(lm.object) function) and the F-test (in anova(lm.object) ) shouldn't this two approach give me the same result, i.e to indicate the same significants terms in both tests??????? obs. The system has two restrictions: 1) sum( x_i ) = 1 2) sum(

On 23.11.2012, at 15:12, john skaller <skaller at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > On 23/11/2012, at 5:46 PM, Sean Silva wrote: > >> Adding LLVMdev, since this is intimately related to the optimization passes. >> >>> I think this is roughly because some function level optimisations are >>> worse than O(N) in the number of instructions. >>

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.

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