similar to: analyze binary variables in R

Dear Adrian Dusa, others, I've recently started to learn R in order to use the QCA package because i think it might offer what other QCA packages don't: possibilities for quite a few conditions and large n. However, can someone tell me approx. how much RAM i need to run QCA on set of +/- 400.000 cases and +/- 15 conditions? (or differently: how much time will it take with RAM of a

I'm about to present a report (for internal use of governmental agency). I used extensively R , contibuted packages, as well as communications on the R-list As well as citing R, I would like to know how to cite the contributed packages (it is not so easy, as some have been used exensively, other marginally, some are called from another package and some were not used as softwares but gave me

Does anybody know of aything that will help me do Quantitiative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and/or Fuzzy set analysis?? Or failing that Quine? ta rg Prof R Gott Durham Univesrity UK

I am having problems when calling "supsmu" in R 1.6.2 installed on RedHat 8.0. I used the rpm provided on the R site. "supsmu" seems to have not been installed by default - (i.e., as part of the modreg package). It also does not occur as part of any of the contibuted packages - so there apparently is no question about installing it from contributed libraries. Can anyone help?

Dear list members, I am pleased to let you know that R met with QCA - Qualitative Comparative Analysis. This package has a few functions that implement the Quine-McCluskey algorithm, adapted to social sciences by Charles Ragin (as describes in his book from 1987 "The Comparative Method"). Future versions of this package will have more functions to address the fuzzy-set minimization

Please keep messages on the list so others can pitch in. _Which_ words do you want to consider identical for the purpose of frequency count? _What_ do you want to plot? B. > On Aug 3, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Riaan Van Der Walt <Riaan.VanDerWalt at nwu.ac.za> wrote: > > Hallo Boris, > I've loaded the Rstem, Snowball. > But I am clueless how to get a list eg. whal* (whale,

Full_Name: Rod Montgomery Version: 1.1.0 OS: Windows-95 Submission from: (NULL) (38.26.56.3) File R-1.1.0/src/appl/lbfgsb.c -- Comment in code says two papers describing underlying math are in ftp://ece.nwu.edu/pub/lbfgs/lbfgs_bcm/ but that directory seems not to exist. (Actually, the comment does not give a URL - it just says to look in that directory on that FTP server.) Paper [1] does

Dear list, Just upgraded to MacOS Mavericks, fresh install of R 3.0.2 and trying to install a previous version of my QCA package (the most recent one source file, which passed the R CMD check --as-cran with R 3.0.1) I seem to have some difficulties in the C code, apparently it doesn't find some headers (please see below): ============ $ R CMD INSTALL --no-multiarch

Daniel, Well then my next (dumb?) question is why aren’t we using source level assert information For optimization ? --Peter Lawrence. From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org] Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 5:39 PM To: Lawrence, Peter <c_plawre at qca.qualcomm.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Early CSE clobbering llvm.assume On Fri, Jun

I am new to R. Busy with Text Analysis. Need a script to find e.g whale, whales, whale's, whaler, whalers, whaling,... in Moby Dick Riaan

Hi Mark, Uhm... sometimes this is not always possible. For example I have a package QCA which produces truth tables (all combinations of presence / absence of causal conditions), and it uses the venn package to draw a Venn diagram. It is debatable if one should assimilate the "venn" package into the QCA package (other people might want Venn diagrams but not necessarily the other QCA

Mehdi, I’m seeing lots of “upgrading” logic, If (UseIPRA) createPass(new DummyCGSCCPass); if (UseIPRA) addPass(createRegUsageInfoPropPass()); if (UseIPRA) addPass(createRegUsageInfoCollector()); ??? --Peter. From: mehdi.amini at

On Oct 5, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Uwe Ligges <ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de> wrote: > > > On 05.10.2015 23:47, Andrew Robinson wrote: >> As a fourth option, I wonder if the first author could fork the package? >> >> Presumably, appropriately cited, a fork is permitted by the license under >> which it was released. Then the original package, by both

Vivek, I apologize if you took my original email as a request for implementation, I meant to be asking what is already available, I think the answer to that is the ‘preserves_most’ and ‘preserves_all’ attributes, but I will also Use ‘regmask’ if those prove to be too sub-optimal. I am still interested in figuring out the necessary and sufficient conditions For LLC to do optimal IPRA

Daniel, My point is this, If (cond) ---- optimizer takes advantage of knowing cond == true within the “then” part Assert(cond) ---- optimizer takes advantage of knowing cond == true for the rest of the scope Assume(cond) ---- optimizer takes advantage of knowing cond == true for the rest of the scope If we aren’t implementing these in a consistent manner (like using an intrinsic for

Thanks all, I don't know either (for the moment). It's all in the design phase still. Generally, I would also like to keep specific functions in specific packages, if at all possible. On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Mark van der Loo <mark.vanderloo at gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I'm not saying that Dmitri _should_ do it. I merely mention it as an > option that I think is

Vivek, Here’s the way I see it, let me know if you agree or disagree, You cannot optimize a function’s calling convention (register-usage) unless You can see and change every caller, and you only know this for non-static functions if you know that all calls to external functions cannot call back into the current compilation unit. #1 gives you the info necessary to change the call-site

Mehdi, I am looking for an understanding of 1) IPRA in general, 2) IPRA in LLVM. Whether I want to use LTO or not is a separate issue. 1) I currently believe it is a true statement that: If all external functions are known to not call back into the “whole-program” Being compiled, then IPRA is free to do anything at all to the functions being

Mehdi, I’m compiling embedded applications which are small enough to do whole-program-compilation. There’s no advantage in breaking them up into separate compilation pieces and linking them, even though in source form they are composed of a couple of separate source files. So for me the compilation unit is always the entire program (and includes main()) Except for some

A third possibility, which I use in my gtools and gdata packages, is to use soft-links to create a copy of the relevant functions from one package in the other. I make sure these functions are *not* exported, so no conflicts are created, and the use of soft-links mean the code never gets out of sync. -Greg -- Change your thoughts and you change the world. --Dr. Norman Vincent Peale > On