search for: purity

Dear R user, I am trying to reproduce the results in Montgomery D.C (2001, chap 13, example 13-1). Briefly, there are three suppliers, four batches nested within suppliers and three determinations of purity (response variable) on each batch. It is a two stage nested design, where suppliers are fixed and batches are random. y_ijk=mu+tau_i+beta_j(nested in tau_i)+epsilon_ijk Here are the data, purity<-c(1,-2,-2,1, -1,-3, 0,4, 0,-4, 1, 0, 1,0,-1,0, -2,4,0...

...p.561 I have attached a pdf of the data as well the anova table. It is a mixed model with Supplier as fixed effect and batches within the supplier as random effects. I am able to work out the error stratums as below using aov. Which agrees perfectly with the book example process=read.table("purity.csv", sep=",", header=TRUE) proc1=aov(Purity~Supplier+Error(Supplier/Batch), process) #Results in print(summary(proc1)) #Error: Supplier -corresponds to fixed effect of Supplier # Df Sum Sq Mean Sq #Supplier 2 15.0556 7.5278 #Error: Supplier:Batch -corresponds to random...

Dear R user, I am trying to reproduce the results in Montgomery D.C (2001, chap 13, example 13-1). Briefly, there are three suppliers, four batches nested within suppliers and three determinations of purity (response variable) on each batch. It is a two stage nested design, where suppliers are fixed and batches are random. y_ijk=mu+tau_i+beta_j(nested in tau_i)+epsilon_ijk Here are the data, purity<-c(1,-2,-2,1, -1,-3, 0,4, 0,-4, 1, 0, 1,0,-1,0, -2,4,0...

...in Montgomery Montgomery with > > > lme. Please remark that you should indicate the nesting with the > > > levels in your nested factor. Therefore I recreated your data, > > > but used 1,...,12 for the levels of batch instead of 1,...,4. > > > > > > purity<-c(1,-2,-2,1,-1,-3,0,4, 0,-4, 1,0, 1,0,-1,0,-2,4,0,3, > > > -3,2,-2,2,2,-2,1,3,4,0,-1,2,0,2,2,1) > > > suppli<-factor(c(rep(1,12),rep(2,12),rep(3,12))) > > > batch<-factor(c(rep(1:4,3), rep(5:8,3), rep(9:12,3))) > > > material<-data.frame...

...allowed to use for outgoing calls. However, I cannot find a way for my AGI script to access the SIP username. Does anyone know if this is possible (even if it is just passing a variable from extensions.conf to the script)? Thanks in advance, David Shirley -- The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don?t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. ?James Nicoll -------------- next part --------...

...ions (and therefore namespaces) is the functional way to do things and helps to minimize the state to which any particular function has access. Organizing the functions we want to be pure so that they are not defined in the same environment in which they are called actually helps to ensure function purity in the input direction, since those functions will not have lexical-scope access to called variables. (That is, you may have written an impure function without realizing it; organizing functions so they are not defined in the same environment as when they are called helps to ensure purity.) Perhap...

...threaded execution for debug runs, but what if you are in the context of a library with no valid stdout/stderr buffers? > This doesn't make any sense. There is very little sense in trying to use DEBUG (which gets compiled out of optimized builds) in a multithreaded context. Polluting the purity of outs() and errs() because of this sort of use case doesn't make any sense to me. outs() and errs() are useful independent of how LLVM happens to use them. The extensions that you are proposing doesn't make any sense give nthe design of raw_ostream. -Chris -------------- next part ---...

...t and easily corrected. Replacing void with {} will actually make the language more deceptive, because if newcomers think {} is LLVM's spelling for C's void, they might be tempted to use {}* for C's void*, and nothing will stop them except mysterious bugs if they do arithmetic. On the purity side, replacing void with {} has the side effect of emphasising an odd asymmetry in the language. Conisder the return types of functions returning 0, 1, 2, and 3 etc. values: 0: {} 1: i32 2: {i32,i32} 3: {i32,i32,i32} etc. Why is 1 special-cased? Argument lists don't have a corresponding spec...

I have another round of questions about IR select canonicalizations. For the purity of this quiz, please disregard prior knowledge of how this is handled by instcombine or how this is lowered by your favorite target...of course we'll fix it. :) Some answers in the links below if you do want to know. Which, if any, of these is canonical? 1. Is a zext simpler than a select? a....

...namespaces) > is the functional way to do things and helps to minimize the state to which > any particular function has access. Organizing the functions we want to be > pure so that they are not defined in the same environment in which they are > called actually helps to ensure function purity in the input direction, > since those functions will not have lexical-scope access to called > variables. (That is, you may have written an impure function without > realizing it; organizing functions so they are not defined in the same > environment as when they are called helps to ens...

...n or can be implemented like TF-ICF(term frequecy inverse corpus frequency),TF-RF(term frequency-relevance frequency) for evaluating the speed and accuracy of final clustering system we can benchmark it against various other algos like k-means,HAC based on the measures mentioned in previous mail.(purity,F-measure,Entropy,F-Measure,Overall Similarity,Relative Margin,Variance Ratio) Please give your suggestions Have a Nice day Regards, Nirmal Singhania B.tech III Yr On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:46 PM, James Aylett <james-xapian at tartarus.org> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:47:29AM...

...> runs, but what if you are in the context of a library with no valid > stdout/stderr buffers? > > > This doesn't make any sense. There is very little sense in trying to use > DEBUG (which gets compiled out of optimized builds) in a multithreaded > context. Polluting the purity of outs() and errs() because of this sort of > use case doesn't make any sense to me. > > outs() and errs() are useful independent of how LLVM happens to use them. > The extensions that you are proposing doesn't make any sense give nthe > design of raw_ostream. > Is the...

...data sets (several times a week) that have abbreviated names. Of course when I come back to that project 8 weeks later I'll need to recreate the short-long mapping in my head... Let's think about WHY abbreviated names were allowed in the first place. Usability is worth a lot more than purity to the actual users of a package. S had the rare advantage of serious users just down the hall from the developers, which I hypothesise is one of the true foundation for it's success. (What user would have invented the hiding aspect S4 classes --- "let's put the results of the fit...

Hi, I think we are overloading the Layout references for garbage collection. If you are creating a reference (kindLayoutAfter) from A to B, that may not mean that you cannot garbage collect B for the end user. My thought on Layout references was that it only guarantees that atoms appear in Layout reference order. Why are we overloading this for Garbage collection (aside from saving space/code)

I just noticed that two key pieces of information are not given by the summary() command: N and SD. we are given the N missing, but not the converse. I know these summary value can be obtained easy, but can't understand why these two pieces of information are not provided with the other info. Thanks, Gerard

Hello all, I am willing to do "eliminating the void type" project. Is there anyone working on it? === Overview === The general concept is to replaced void with {}. And 'ret void' is a synonym of 'ret {} {}.' === Further Implementation Details === 1. Deleting VoidTyID 2. Deleting LLVMVoidTypeKind (one-to-one relation between VoidTyID and LLVMVoidTypeKind) 3. Use

Hi Suman, I think you can ascertain pureness automatically leveraging the compiler instead of manually tagging attribute to each method and call-site. It would seem like impurity should be a transitive attribute. So this would conflict with below. __attribute__((annotate("pure"))) int add(uint32_t a, uint32_t b) { // impure by calling printf... ... printf("%d + %d = %d\n", a, b, c) __attribute__((annotate("call_ impure"))); Finding puri...

On 18 Aug 2016, at 23:59, Richhiey Thomas <richhiey.thomas at gmail.com> wrote: > I've currently added a few classes which don't really belong to the public API (currently) into private headers and used PIMPL with the Cluster class. I'm having difficulty reading your changes, because you aren't keeping to one complete change per commit. So for instance you've added a

All, My apologies if this is a little long-winded and stream of consciousness-y :). SUMMARY: Why do we extend ActiveRecord instead of mixing it in to our model classes? Been thinking about my app''s models and starting to want to build something of a hierarchy. I have some commonality across 3 of my model classes and I''d liek to aggregate the behavior in a superclass.

Hi, FreeBSD libc Berkeley DB can leak sensitive information to database files. The problem is that it writes uninitialized memory obtained from malloc(3) to database files. You can use this simple test program to reproduce the behavior: http://www.saunalahti.fi/~jh3/dbtest.c Run the program and see the resulting test.db file which will contain a sequence of 0xa5 bytes directly from malloc(3).