On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:52 PM, aleba...@gmail.com
wrote:
>>
>> 2017-01-23 15:33 GMT+01:00 Robert Kern :
>>>
>>> I don't object to some Notes, but I would probably phrase it
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>
> > As for the standardness of the definition: I don't know, have you a
> reference where it is defined? More natural to me would be to have a list
> of items with integer multiplicities (as in: "cat" 3 times, "dog" 1
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:52 PM, aleba...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
> 2017-01-23 15:33 GMT+01:00 Robert Kern :
>
>>
>> I don't object to some Notes, but I would probably phrase it more like we
>> are providing the standard definition of the jargon term
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Anne Archibald
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 3:34 PM Robert Kern wrote:
>>
>> I don't object to some Notes, but I would probably phrase it more like
we are providing the standard definition of the jargon
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 3:34 PM Robert Kern wrote:
> I don't object to some Notes, but I would probably phrase it more like we
> are providing the standard definition of the jargon term "sampling without
> replacement" in the case of non-uniform probabilities. To my mind
2017-01-23 15:33 GMT+01:00 Robert Kern :
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Anne Archibald
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:13 PM Nadav Har'El wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:30 PM,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Anne Archibald
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:13 PM Nadav Har'El wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:30 PM, wrote:
>>>
Having more sampling schemes would be useful, but it's not
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:13 PM Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:30 PM, wrote:
>
>
>
> Having more sampling schemes would be useful, but it's not possible to
> implement sampling schemes with impossible properties.
>
>
>
> BTW: sampling 3
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:30 PM, wrote:
>
>
> Having more sampling schemes would be useful, but it's not possible to
>> implement sampling schemes with impossible properties.
>>
>>
>
> BTW: sampling 3 out of 3 without replacement is even worse
>
> No matter what sampling
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:53 AM, wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:00 AM, aleba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Let's look at what the user asked this function, and
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:00 AM, aleba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> Let's look at what the user asked this function, and what it returns:
>>
>>>
>>> User asks: please give me random pairs of the three
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:00 AM, aleba...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Let's look at what the user asked this function, and what it returns:
>
>>
>> User asks: please give me random pairs of the three items, where item 1
>> has probability 0.2, item 2 has 0.4, and 3 has 0.4.
>>
>>
2017-01-18 9:35 GMT+01:00 Nadav Har'El :
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:58 AM, aleba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2017-01-17 22:13 GMT+01:00 Nadav Har'El :
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:18 PM, aleba...@gmail.com
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:58 AM, aleba...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
> 2017-01-17 22:13 GMT+01:00 Nadav Har'El :
>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:18 PM, aleba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Nadav,
>>>
>>> I may be wrong, but I think that
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 6:58 PM, aleba...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
> 2017-01-17 22:13 GMT+01:00 Nadav Har'El :
>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:18 PM, aleba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Nadav,
>>>
>>> I may be wrong, but I think that
2017-01-17 22:13 GMT+01:00 Nadav Har'El :
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:18 PM, aleba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Nadav,
>>
>> I may be wrong, but I think that the result of the current implementation
>> is actually the expected one.
>> Using you example:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:18 PM, aleba...@gmail.com
wrote:
>>
>> Hi Nadav,
>>
>> I may be wrong, but I think that the result of the current
implementation is actually the expected one.
>> Using you
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:18 PM, aleba...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi Nadav,
>
> I may be wrong, but I think that the result of the current implementation
> is actually the expected one.
> Using you example: probabilities for item 1, 2 and 3 are: 0.2, 0.4 and 0.4
>
> P([1,2]) =
18 matches
Mail list logo