On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 12:45:33PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 12:35:08PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > Line 160: > > double pNotConnectFailedOrSearchFailed = > > (1 - pConnectFailed) * (1- pSearchFailed); > > My high-school math is a bit rusty, but shouldn't that be: > > ... = 1-(pConnectFailed+pSearchFailed); > Well, thinking about it what is there is: > not(connectFailed) and not(searchFailed) > My suggested correction was: > not (connectFailed or searchFailed) > Which, if I am not mistaken, is the same thing.
Thinking about it some more - perhaps not. Lets say pConnectfailed was 0.1 and pSearchFailed was 0.3. the original way of calculating it would tell us that pNotConnectFailedOrSearchFailed is 0.63 - but my method would tell us that it is 0.6. I think my method recognises the fact that you cannot have a ConnectFailure and a SearchFailure at the same time. I will await edt or toad's opinion before committing anything. Ian. -- Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Weblog http://slashdot.org/~sanity/journal _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
