similar to: Fast and simple tool for re-sampling of asynchronous time series ?

Hello, Is it possible to generate simulated data that look like the attached figure? The curve in the figure can be obtained from this equation respecting some conditions: if(Temperature > T_min & Temperature < T_max){ a*( Temperature -T_min)*( Temperature -T_max) } else 0 T_min ~ Uniform(0, 24) T_max ~ Uniform(25, 45) -a ~ Gamma(1, 1) Temperature <- seq(0, 45, by = 1)

Does this look okay? : Time: 1:15.50 of 4:13.73, Bitrate: 133.3 How about? : <snip from=ogg123.c> info.u_time = ov_time_total (&vf, -1); /* Seconds with double precision */ gettimeofday (&start_time, NULL); t_min = (long) info.u_time / (long) 60; t_sec = info.u_time - 60 * t_min; while (! eos) { gettimeofday (&cur_time, NULL); c_min = (long)

Dear all, I'd like to have a dataframe store information about the units of the data it contains. You'll find below a minimal exemple of the way I do, so far. I add a "units" attribute to the dataframe. But I dont' like the long syntax needed to access to the unit of a given variable (namely, something like : var_unit <- attr(my_frame,

Hi, if I got it right then the survival-time we expect for a subject is the integral over the specific survival-function of the subject from 0 to t_max. If I have a trained cox-model and want to make a prediction of the survival-time for a new subject I could use survfit(coxmodel, newdata=newSubject) to estimate a new survival-function which I have to integrate thereafter. Actually I thought

Dear all, This is potentially a bug in spec.pgram, when the number of samples is odd,spec.pgramreturns a different result withfast = TRUE, the example below contains the two varieties with a reference spectrum calculated manually. the number of returned spectra is also larger (50 compared to 49) whenfast = TRUE x <- rnorm( 99 ) plot(spec.pgram(x, taper = 0 , detrend = FALSE , plot =

Un texte encapsul? et encod? dans un jeu de caract?res inconnu a ?t? nettoy?... Nom : non disponible URL : <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/20100727/2e19110f/attachment.pl>

Hi, I need some help figuring out how to make a pop-up message box appear with error messages when running a script using Rterm. Windows XP R2.10.1 ...possibly with the ability to either continue or abort the script? Thanks. M -- [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Sorry to reply to myself here, but I had an idea regarding "issue #2" -- possibly what makes the most sense for those clients/targets is to pull the pointer difference computation/reapplication into RS4GC itself -- it could have a pass just before or after rematerialization, which runs based on a configuration flag (eventually to be driven by GCStrategy), which performs rewrites like

The following series implements libxl_domain_config_init as per the libxl API requirement that each type has an init function. The first function does this in an open coded manner and is proposed for Xen 4.2. The second function is RFC only since it moves the definition of this type into the IDL and makes the required infrastructure updates to enable this. I think this is more 4.3 material at

Hello, I was using garchFit {fGarch} to fit some GARCH processes. I noticed that the result contains "Log Likelihood" value (right above "Description"), but when I use .. at fit$llh to retrieve Log Likelihood value, the sign switched. I am confused about which value I should choose to report... Any help here? Thanks a lot! Ted -- View this message in context:

Thanks, I think that's a useful way to look at it (though if I wanted to bikeshed I'd suggest the name "DoubleIndirect" as a bit more precise than "VeryIndirect"). An aspect of it that I'm still puzzling over is that my target runtime (at least in its current form) doesn't have a way to represent/process a "VeryIndirect" pointer. So I'd like to

For anyone following along on ToT using the gc.statepoint mechanism, you should know that ToT is currently not able to express arbitrary exceptional control flow and relocations along exceptional edges. This is a direct result of moving the gc.statepoint representation to using a token type landingpad. Essentially, we have a design inconsistency where we expect to be able to

Following series cleans up a few niggles in the libxl destructor autogeneration. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Introduction: We would like to add new keyword to 'sdiv'\'udiv' instructions i.e. 'no-overflow'. This is the updated solution devised in the discussion: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118257.html The proposed keywords: "nof" stands for 'no-overflow' Syntax: <result> = sdiv nof <ty> <op1>,

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek > <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> >> On 11/2/2012 11:53 AM, Michael Ilseman wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I think Dan was making two points with his example. Dan, correct me if I >>>

The following series of patches fill in most of the gaps in the OCaml bindings to libxl, to make them useful for clients such as xapi/xenopsd (from XCP). There are a number of bugfixes to the existing bindings as well. I have an experimental version of xenopsd that successfully uses the new bindings. An earlier version of the first half of the series was submitted to the last by Ian Campbell on

Hi, I am trying to create a function for a goodness-of-fit test for the Pareto Distribution for some loss data that I have. So far I have the following: function(X=OTOL) { n <- length(X)-1 #calculated the number of values (extra as 0 included) i <- 2:640 #values of i j <- 1:639 #values of i-1 Y <- (n-j+1)*((X[i])-(X[j])) #First part of GoF model Y } Where OTOL is the ordered loss

I just want to make sure I understand the semantic of the icmp function correctly as assumption are dangerous in this domain. The syntax is specified as follow: <result> = icmp <cond> <ty> <var1>, <var2> ; yields {bool}:result But I can not find the documentation for <ty>. Is the following interpretation correct: Both <var1> and <var2> are

The langref says for the 'add' instruction: Syntax: <result> = add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ; yields {ty}:result <result> = nuw add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ; yields {ty}:result <result> = nsw add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ; yields {ty}:result <result> = nuw nsw add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ;

I have experienced this myself. It is very upsetting. (Sent from iPhone, so please accept my apologies in advance for any spelling or grammatical errors.) > On Jan 19, 2017, at 2:57 AM, Fabian Arrotin <arrfab at centos.org> wrote: > > log