Displaying 11 results from an estimated 11 matches for "constant1".
Did you mean:
constant
2010 Mar 26
4
Competing with SPSS and SAS: improving code that loops through rows (data manipulation)
...value in a given row is a function of (a)
2 constants (that have several levels each),
# (b) the corresponding value of the original variable (e.g.,
a.ind.to.max"), and the value in the previous row on the same new
variable
# PLUS: - it has to be done by subgroup (variable "group")
constant1<-c(1:3) # constant 1 used for transformation -
has 3 levels; !!! in real life it will have up to 7 levels
constant2<-seq(.15,.45,.15) # constant 2 used for transformation -
has 3 levels; !!! in real life it will have up to 7 levels
# CODE THAT IS TOO SLOW (it uses parameters sp...
2005 Jun 09
2
lme model specification
Dear All,
I am trying to specify the following fixed effects model for lme:
y ~ constant1 - beta1*(x - beta2)
where y is the response, x is the independent variable, and the
operators above are real arithmetic operations of addition, subtraction,
and multiplication. I realize that this model is just a
reparameterization of y=beta0+beta1*x, but I am using this
parameterization because...
2016 Dec 31
2
SCCP is not always correct in presence of undef (+ proposed fix)
...ually-unknown" to "50"?
Another way of stating my suggestion is that, if you agree that this
is a correct lattice (different from Davide's proposal) and pretend
the "spontaneous undef decay" problem does not exist, then:
digraph G {
Unknown -> Undef
Undef -> Constant1
Undef -> Constant2
Undef -> Constant3
Constant1 -> Bottom
Constant2 -> Bottom
Constant3-> Bottom
}
then it should be legal / correct to first drop every lattice element
from "Unknown" to "Undef" before running the algorithm. The only
cases where this w...
2016 Dec 31
0
SCCP is not always correct in presence of undef (+ proposed fix)
...fValue>(C))
+ return;
+ return markConstant(IV, &I, C);
+ }
// Otherwise, one of our operands is overdefined. Try to produce something
// better than overdefined with some tricks.
Also, did you mean to make the lattice as:
digraph G {
Unknown -> Undef
Undef -> Constant1
Undef -> Constant2
Undef -> Constant3
Constant1 -> Bottom
Constant2 -> Bottom
Constant3-> Bottom
}
? In the lattice you've drawn, Constant MEET Undef will be Bottom,
when it should ideally be Constant.
Secondly, what's the purpose of splitting Unknown and Undef i...
2016 Dec 31
0
SCCP is not always correct in presence of undef (+ proposed fix)
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.
> com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Is there a case in
2016 Dec 31
0
SCCP is not always correct in presence of undef (+ proposed fix)
...>
> Another way of stating my suggestion is that, if you agree that this
> is a correct lattice (different from Davide's proposal) and pretend
> the "spontaneous undef decay" problem does not exist, then:
>
> digraph G {
> Unknown -> Undef
> Undef -> Constant1
> Undef -> Constant2
> Undef -> Constant3
> Constant1 -> Bottom
> Constant2 -> Bottom
> Constant3-> Bottom
> }
>
> then it should be legal / correct to first drop every lattice element
> from "Unknown" to "Undef" before running...
2016 Dec 31
4
SCCP is not always correct in presence of undef (+ proposed fix)
...I, C);
> + }
>
> // Otherwise, one of our operands is overdefined. Try to produce
> something
> // better than overdefined with some tricks.
>
>
>
>
> Also, did you mean to make the lattice as:
>
> digraph G {
> Unknown -> Undef
> Undef -> Constant1
> Undef -> Constant2
> Undef -> Constant3
> Constant1 -> Bottom
> Constant2 -> Bottom
> Constant3-> Bottom
> }
>
> ? In the lattice you've drawn, Constant MEET Undef will be Bottom,
> when it should ideally be Constant.
>
> Secondly, wh...
2016 Dec 31
0
SCCP is not always correct in presence of undef (+ proposed fix)
...one of our operands is overdefined. Try to produce
>> something
>> // better than overdefined with some tricks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, did you mean to make the lattice as:
>>
>> digraph G {
>> Unknown -> Undef
>> Undef -> Constant1
>> Undef -> Constant2
>> Undef -> Constant3
>> Constant1 -> Bottom
>> Constant2 -> Bottom
>> Constant3-> Bottom
>> }
>>
>> ? In the lattice you've drawn, Constant MEET Undef will be Bottom,
>> when it should ideally...
2010 Jul 18
1
Access from an AD group
Hi,
I am using samba 3.0.24
Is it possible to grant access to a samba share
to an Active Directory group ?
I have a samba share, I want an AD group can access
it (read) without a password, is it possible ?
Thanks for your help
2016 Dec 31
2
SCCP is not always correct in presence of undef (+ proposed fix)
...f stating my suggestion is that, if you agree that this
>> is a correct lattice (different from Davide's proposal) and pretend
>> the "spontaneous undef decay" problem does not exist, then:
>>
>> digraph G {
>> Unknown -> Undef
>> Undef -> Constant1
>> Undef -> Constant2
>> Undef -> Constant3
>> Constant1 -> Bottom
>> Constant2 -> Bottom
>> Constant3-> Bottom
>> }
>>
>> then it should be legal / correct to first drop every lattice element
>> from "Unknown"...
2016 Dec 30
5
SCCP is not always correct in presence of undef (+ proposed fix)
Hi.
I'm sending this email to -dev as this may be of interest of
many/people may have opinions/want to try the change before it goes in
to report problems.
I've been recently working on a patch to integrate `undef` in the SCCP
solver, in the hope of fixing a tail of latent bugs in SCCP which
remained uncovered for many years. I think this is a decent time to
propose, so that it can