similar to: optim() has a non-consistent way to send parameter for different methods

Having worked with optim() and related programs for years, it surprised me that I haven't noticed this before, but optim() is inconsistent in how it deals with bounds constraints specified at infinity. Here's an example: # optim-glitch-Ex.R x0<-c(1,2,3,4) fnt <- function(x, fscale=10){ yy <- length(x):1 val <- sum((yy*x)^2)*fscale } grt <- function(x, fscale=10){ nn

Dear both, I have found that names are not treated in the same way in optim() depending on the optimization method (argument method). The example below shows the difference between the Brent method and the L-BFGS-B method. f <- function(x){ y <- x^2;names(y) <-"f(x)";y} optim(10, f, method="Brent", lower=-1, upper=10)$value optim(10, f, method="L-BFGS-B",

The optim documentation states (second from last sentence of Details Section) that "Any names given to par will be copied to the vectors passed to \code{fn} and \code{gr}." This does not seem to be the case when the method argument is set to "Brent". Consider finding an optimum with the "Brent" method and a fn argument that does not rely on a named par argument,

Hello all, I am looking for some help in understanding how to change the way R optimizes the smoothing constant selection process for the HoltWinters function. I'm a SAS veteran but very new to R and still learning my way around. Here is some sample data and the current HoltWinters code I'm using: rawdata <- c(294, 316, 427, 487, 441, 395, 473, 423, 389, 422, 458, 411, 433, 454,

Passing in two dates to a sql statement (sqldf). Is returning a factor. Tried setting back to a Date via as.Date, but get an error the error: character string is not in a standard unambiguous format. Any thoughts appreciated. Code/Results listed below: > summary(df.possible.combos) Date Hour Min. :2011-03-01 Min. : 0.00 1st Qu.:2011-03-23 1st Qu.: 5.75

Good day Guys I forgot to add and mention a very important piece of the puzzle. We are making use of dovecots compression plugin. I.e. https://doc.dovecot.org/configuration_manual/zlib_plugin/#compression Regards Brent Clark On 2019/11/11 14:49, Brent Clark wrote: > Good day Aki > > Thanks ever so much for replying. > > Interesting that you ask the version of dovecot. Any

Hi Brent, You're correct. The segmented stack model is intended for performance, not security. Its goal is to allow lightweight threads to be very cheaply allocated and destroyed. For your model, you would most likely want to use different address spaces for the different memory types. Currently, clang does not allow you to define the address space of variables with automatic storage

Hi Brent, On 03/06/13 14:32, Brent Gregory Roth wrote: > Hi Duncan, > > Are the segmented stacks actually on separate memory segments? My intended > purpose for placing different datatypes on separate stacks is such that memory > accesses to one datatype won't be allowed to overflow to another datatype. > > If they aren't, in fact, on separate memory segments, are you

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Brent Jones<brent at servuhome.net> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:00 AM, James Lever<j at jamver.id.au> wrote: >> >> On 25/06/2009, at 4:38 PM, John Ryan wrote: >> >>> Can I ask the same question - does anyone know when the 113 build will >>> show up on pkg.opensolaris.org/dev ? >> >> On

What version are you running? Aki On 11.11.2019 12.26, Brent Clark via dovecot wrote: > Good day Guys > > Just an update, my colleague and I came across this script. > > https://www.dovecot.org/tools/maildir-size-fix.pl > > We made a backup, ran it, but unfortunately the problem still persists. > > Regards > Brent > > On 2019/11/11 11:42, Brent Clark wrote:

Hi Duncan, It doesn't appear to be what I'm looking for as there is copying of the old stack to the new stack. Additionally, according to the LLVM docs on segmented stacks (http://llvm.org/releases/3.0/docs/SegmentedStacks.html) the stacklings are allocated memory from the heap. Since this places them all on the same memory segment, a read/write from one stackling could technically

http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10696 Brent Elskan <brent.elskan at gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |brent.elskan at gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Brent Elskan <brent.elskan at gmail.com> 2008-07-02

Good day Aki Thanks ever so much for replying. Interesting that you ask the version of dovecot. Any specific reason, this question.? To answer your question. dovecot-core 1:2.2.27-3+deb9u5 Regards Brent On 2019/11/11 12:27, Aki Tuomi wrote: > What version are you running? > > Aki > > On 11.11.2019 12.26, Brent Clark via dovecot wrote: >> Good day Guys >> >>

closure... he didn't cc the list so I'm forwarding it: --- Brent Bowman <bbowman@vistacraft.com> wrote: > From: "Brent Bowman" <bbowman@vistacraft.com> > Subject: RE: Re: [Flac-users] New to the list > Date: 16 Oct 2002 11:38:46 -0700 > > > Thanks all for your replies. It turns out that this is a false > alarm and the error is actually in my

I have no clue, I didn't have time to look into that example yet. How does the IR (before optimization) differ from the other version? Roel On 01/24/2012 04:45 PM, Brent Walker wrote: > Can you explain please why it works for this version of the function: > > double f(double *__restrict__ x, double *__restrict__ y, double > *__restrict__ z); > > What is different here?

Peter Cooper wrote: > I think the problem here is that the IR doesn't have any way to attach restrict information to loads/stores/pointers. I think we do now, actually. Now that the loads and stores have TBAA metadata, I think the restrict attribute can go there. It needs to be attached to every use of a restrict pointer, but that's similar to how TBAA already works. > It works

Hi I have used fa() to perform a factor analysis of a psychological battery which is thought to have 11 factors. I can identify which factors the loadings relate to easily enough because I can see which items are loading onto each of the columns in the $loading output. However, how can I identify which items or loadings are being used to create each of the columns in the $scores output? I have

Hi all Consider the classic data below from Darwin on the heights of 15 pairs of zea mays (corn) plants either cross-fertilized or self-fertilized, where the goal is to see if it makes a difference. > head(ZeaMays) pair pot cross self diff 1 1 1 23.500 17.375 6.125 2 2 1 12.000 20.375 -8.375 3 3 1 21.000 20.000 1.000 4 4 2 22.000 20.000 2.000 5 5 2 19.125

Hi Duncan, Are the segmented stacks actually on separate memory segments? My intended purpose for placing different datatypes on separate stacks is such that memory accesses to one datatype won't be allowed to overflow to another datatype. If they aren't, in fact, on separate memory segments, are you aware of a way to place a non-readable/-writable segment in between two other stack

Hi Brent, LLVM supports segmented stacks, I suggest you do a case insensitive grep for segmented.stack in the source code (the . is to match any character). Ciao, Duncan. On 03/06/13 00:35, Brent Gregory Roth wrote: > Greetings, > > First, my apologies if I have incorrectly used any of these lists. > > I'm sending this email in order to get some help on where in the >