Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #102489 > unrolled thread

Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-26 12:15 -0800
    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean f unction Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-26 21:25 +0000
      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean f unction Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-26 22:48 -0800
    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-26 22:09 +0000
      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 00:25 -0800
        Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-27 08:35 +0000
          Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 01:53 -0800
            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-27 10:33 +0000
              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-27 13:29 +0100
                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-27 13:05 +0000
                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-27 16:05 +0100
                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-27 15:31 +0000
                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-27 17:11 +0100
                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-28 07:45 +1300
                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-27 15:35 +0000
                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-27 17:16 +0100
                        Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-27 17:13 +0000
                          Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-29 14:26 +0100
                            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-29 14:51 +0000
                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-29 23:05 +0100
                            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-31 11:23 +0000
                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-31 13:21 +0100
                          Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-02 00:59 -0800
                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-27 16:57 +0000
                        Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-27 17:16 +0000
                          Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-28 00:41 +0000
                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-28 05:05 -0800
                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-27 11:29 -0500
                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-27 09:25 -0800
                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-27 10:00 -0800
                        Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-27 11:50 -0800
                          Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-29 14:41 +0100
                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-01-27 15:36 +0100
                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-27 16:22 +0100
                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-01-27 16:53 +0100
                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-27 17:17 +0100
              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 05:38 -0800
                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-27 16:44 +0000
                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-27 16:59 +0000
                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 09:44 -0800
                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-27 23:42 +0000
                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 21:59 -0800
                        Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 22:23 -0800
                        Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-28 11:15 +0000
                        Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-28 09:51 -0500
                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 03:43 -0800
                        Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-28 14:49 +0000
                          Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 10:15 -0800
                            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-28 14:13 -0500
                            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-29 12:55 +0000
                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 05:11 -0800
                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-29 14:38 +0000
                                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 09:00 -0800
                                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-29 17:11 +0000
                                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 10:09 -0800
                        Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-28 10:45 -0500
                          Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 10:26 -0800
                            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-28 14:54 -0500
                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 01:54 -0800
                          Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 10:38 -0800
                            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-28 14:52 -0500
                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-28 19:00 -0800
                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-28 22:54 -0500
                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 01:33 -0800
                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-29 10:37 -0500
                                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-29 15:57 +0000
                                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 09:19 -0800
                                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 11:49 -0800
                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 01:40 -0800
                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-29 10:48 -0500
                                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 09:59 -0800
                                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-29 13:52 -0500
                                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 12:48 -0800
                                        Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-29 16:27 -0500
                                          Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 04:57 -0800
                                            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-30 12:26 -0500
                                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 10:04 -0800
                                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 10:28 -0800
                                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-30 14:38 -0500
                                                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 12:45 -0800
                                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 10:39 -0800
                                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-30 12:41 -0800
                                                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 13:02 -0800
                                                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-31 13:37 -0800
                                                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 21:36 -0800
                                                        Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-03 08:32 -0800
                                                          Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 10:39 -0800
                                                            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 19:07 +0000
                                                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-03 11:40 -0800
                                                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 21:25 -0800
                                                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-04 09:01 +0000
                                                                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 03:13 -0800
                                                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 11:37 -0500
                                                            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 11:33 -0500
                                                          Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 11:02 -0800
                                                            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 11:46 -0500
                                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-30 21:19 +0000
                                                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 13:10 -0800
                                                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-31 21:18 +0000
                                                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 13:26 -0800
                                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-30 16:29 -0500
                                                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 13:14 -0800
                                                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-31 16:46 -0500
                                                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 21:40 -0800
                                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 21:26 -0800
                                                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-31 11:15 +0100
                                                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-31 10:35 +0000
                                                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-01-31 02:59 -0800
                                                        Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-31 12:20 +0100
                                                          Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-31 11:52 +0000
                                                            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-01-31 06:52 -0800
                                                        Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-31 13:28 +0000
                                                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 13:20 -0800
                                                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-31 23:33 +0000
                                        Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-29 21:55 +0000
                                          Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-30 11:48 -0500
                                            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 09:15 -0800
                                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-30 14:27 -0500
                                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 12:41 -0800
                                                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-31 16:38 -0500
                                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-30 19:54 +0000
                                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 12:51 -0800
                                                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-31 16:54 -0500
                                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-30 12:19 -0800
                                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-30 13:54 -0800
                                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 12:57 -0800
                                                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-31 13:35 -0800
                                                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-31 17:01 -0500
                                                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-02-06 14:38 +0000
                                            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-30 10:09 -0800
                                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 10:24 -0800
                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 01:48 -0800
                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-29 11:07 -0500
                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 01:52 -0800
                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-29 11:25 -0500
                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-04 13:26 -0500
                          Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-28 15:08 -0500
                          Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 01:20 -0800
                            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-29 11:17 -0500
                            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2017-01-29 08:42 -0800
                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 09:58 -0800
                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-27 22:45 +0000
                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 00:56 -0800
                        Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-28 11:46 +0000
                          Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 05:08 -0800
                            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-28 05:26 -0800
                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-28 13:01 -0800
                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-30 09:46 -0800
                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-30 12:45 -0800
                            Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-28 15:05 +0000
                              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 10:23 -0800
                                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-29 13:06 +0000
                                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 05:17 -0800
                                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-29 14:51 +0000
                                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-29 12:34 -0800
                                  Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 06:31 -0800
                                    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-29 16:03 +0000
                                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 10:04 -0800
                                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 00:00 -0800
                                        Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-30 11:06 +0000
                                      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 00:13 -0800
              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-27 07:39 -0800
                Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-27 17:30 +0100
              Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-27 16:16 +0000
    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-27 11:49 -0800
      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 00:48 -0800
        Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-28 11:02 -0800
      Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-28 11:09 -0500
    Re: Passing values from structure arrays to a generic geometrical mean function Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-01-28 18:56 +0000

Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9  Next page →

#102778

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 8:27:07 PM UTC+3, James R. Kuyper wrote:
> On 01/30/2017 07:57 AM, Alla _ wrote:
> ...
> > With all respect I would like to opt out from this discussion because I consider
> > it fruitless to both of us - we both talk about something related
> > to our cases. If you have ever created pro forma statements and have
> > exact examples of data in spreadsheets will such computations, than
> > it could be very interesting to see, and to continue this discussion
> > (and definitely not here).
> 
> I make no claim to being an expert in accounting. However, neither am I 
> ignorant of the subject. I learned the basics of accounting many years 
> ago because my instructors thought I might end up using my computing 
> skills in financial contexts, which is not how my career actually turned 
> out. I used those basics while doing my own personal bookkeeping.
> At one time, my wife was considering changing her career to accounting. 
> She took a different accounting class every semester for several years, 
> including summer sessions I and II. Because English is not her native 
> language, she came to me for help. I would spend 10-15 minutes reading 
> and easily understanding each chapter, and then spend the next several 
> hours explaining what I had just learned to her. Unless you have at 
> least a certificate of some kind in accounting, please don't 
> automatically assume that I'm ignorant of any particular aspect of 
> accounting that you're well aware of.
> 
> The problem with your function has nothing to do with accounting 
> principles. Accounting involves some very weird processes that can be 
> difficult to justify mathematically, such as the way double-declining 
> balance depreciation is calculated. But whenever that's the case, 
> there's very specific rules describing what you're supposed to do (in 
> the case of double-declining balance depreciation, those rules are 
> embedded in US tax law, as well as the rules of several different 
> international accounting authorities).
> If there were any such rules justifying the bizarre features of your 
> function, you could have cited them, and I'm fairly certain I would have 
> understood those rules, and might even have been able to understand why 
> they were written that way. I did in fact ask you to cite them, but you 
> haven't done so, which leads me to believe that the peculiar features of 
> your function are entirely your own invention - which is consistent with 
> the way you've written many other pieces of code that you've posted to 
> this group. You routinely add unnecessary and often just plain wrong 
> complications to what should be simple functions.
> 
> > At the moment, as I said, it is fruitless because you are referring to
> > something you are thinking about, to some abstract math ideas,
> > even if you apply them to some examples of basic compound interest
> > computations. I made a mistake most likely when I wrote a phrase
> > "interest rate" instead of "interes>
> t expense", which has led to you
> > showing pretty basic examples, not referred to what I am computing.
> >  You are not basing your examples on my data, and
> > even not on some financial statements, i.e. income statements and
> > balance sheet data, which I take as basis for my computation.
> 
> Going back you your earlier messages about this program, you have 
> indicated that you're collecting accounting data and then attempting to 
> project it into the future. That's data modeling, and the relevant rules 
> for data modeling that are violated by your function are just as 
> relevant when you're modeling financial data as they are when you're 
> modeling the scientific data that I have more professional experience with.
> 
> If you have a series of numbers x[i] for which there's a good reason to 
> expect them to have a nearly constant ratio between consecutive numbers 
> in the series, it can be reasonable to model that series for projections 
> into the future as having an exactly constant ratio, and calculating the 
> geometric mean of those ratios is a reasonable, if simplistic, way of 
> determining what that constant should be.
> 
> If you have a series of numbers y[i], such that 1.0+y[i] has the same 
> properties as the ratios described in the previous paragraph, then it 
> can make sense to model that series as having a constant value of y, and 
> to determine what that constant value should be by calculating the 
> geometric mean of 1.0+y[i] over all values of i, and subtracting 1.0 
> from that geometric mean.
> 
> However, it doesn't make sense to have a series of numbers z[i], and to 
> calculate the geometric mean over all values of i of either z[i] or 
> 1.0+z[i], depending upon the value of z[i]. And that's precisely the 
> kind of calculation your function does.
> 
> > Therefore, not being a math professor, at the moment I am interested
> > only in applicable computations based on concrete data, say from
> > K-10 reports, and not on discussing math issues. I do hope to have
> > an opportunity to learn math much more thoroughly and sometime
> > to be able to indulge in truly interesting discussions on math issues.
> 
> I'm fairly certain that the calculations you are doing are NOT the 
> "applicable" ones. They seem to represent a bizarre misunderstanding on 
> your part about what the term "geometric mean" means.

I think that one of the trolls here in this group, who occasionally writes
things about me, is actually right. You have most likely seen those posts.
I should leave the group because, as you have also righteously mentioned
 a few times, my posts are irrelevant to this group and they truly degrade it,
let alone vex everyone. 
I should look for a proper course on C, learn the language, and try to reach
 a good professional knowledge of the subject. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#102796

Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> I think that one of the trolls here in this group, who occasionally writes
> things about me, is actually right. You have most likely seen those posts.
> I should leave the group because, as you have also righteously mentioned
>  a few times, my posts are irrelevant to this group and they truly degrade it,
> let alone vex everyone. 

I don't believe anyone worth listening to is saying that you should
leave the group.  (It's very likely I haven't seen the posts you're
referring to.)

Personally, I'd like to see a rationale for the way your
mean_twonums() function works.  You seem unwilling to provide one.
The question might be on the periphery of topicality, but turning
an English description of an algorithm into C code that implements
that algorithm is a big part of what C programming is all about.
Without seeing such a description, given only the C source code,
it's impossible to tell whether the function is logically correct.
With such a description, it's likely we could either help you improve
it or acknowledge that you've already implemented it it correctly
(though the use of pow(..., 1.0/2.0) rather than sqrt(...) is odd).

> I should look for a proper course on C, learn the language, and try to
> reach a good professional knowledge of the subject.

Having a professional level of knowledge is not a prerequisite for
participation here.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#102866

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 11:41:08 PM UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> writes:
> [...]
> > I think that one of the trolls here in this group, who occasionally writes
> > things about me, is actually right. You have most likely seen those posts.
> > I should leave the group because, as you have also righteously mentioned
> >  a few times, my posts are irrelevant to this group and they truly degrade it,
> > let alone vex everyone. 
> 
> I don't believe anyone worth listening to is saying that you should
> leave the group.  (It's very likely I haven't seen the posts you're
> referring to.)
> 
> Personally, I'd like to see a rationale for the way your
> mean_twonums() function works.  You seem unwilling to provide one.
> The question might be on the periphery of topicality, but turning
> an English description of an algorithm into C code that implements
> that algorithm is a big part of what C programming is all about.
> Without seeing such a description, given only the C source code,
> it's impossible to tell whether the function is logically correct.
> With such a description, it's likely we could either help you improve
> it or acknowledge that you've already implemented it it correctly
> (though the use of pow(..., 1.0/2.0) rather than sqrt(...) is odd).
Yes, I understand it. And when I am back to a proper learning, I hope
to develop a habit of correctly formulating every single step of the 
code on paper before implementing it on computer. I am not very 
good at it yet; have been thinking about it today, when I made a 
rather big mistake, which could have been easily avoided had i
written the whole function properly on paper. 
> 
> > I should look for a proper course on C, learn the language, and try to
> > reach a good professional knowledge of the subject.
> 
> Having a professional level of knowledge is not a prerequisite for
> participation here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#102876

Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 11:41:08 PM UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> Personally, I'd like to see a rationale for the way your
>> mean_twonums() function works.
[...]

> Yes, I understand it.

I didn't ask whether you understand it.  I'm saying I don't understand
it, and I'm asking you to explain it.  Do you refuse to do so?

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103002

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:37:25 AM UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 11:41:08 PM UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote:
> [...]
> >> Personally, I'd like to see a rationale for the way your
> >> mean_twonums() function works.
> [...]
> 
> > Yes, I understand it.
> 
> I didn't ask whether you understand it.  I'm saying I don't understand
> it, and I'm asking you to explain it.  Do you refuse to do so?
> 
No, I do not refuse to explain anything. But I am flabbergasted
by the whole discussion because I have explained myself from the 
very start, and did make explicit remarks on what and why I am 
doing with this program. I have said quite a few times that this is
not a rigorously correct program that deals with real life situations,
although it does contain the majority of usual basic tools of fin
analysis. But it also contains features that I have added for the sake
of programming in C, to make the program more extensive, to add
some features, which might be useful for me in future, to work on 
some C issues I wanted to work, etc. And those mean computing functions
are exactly part of those add ons. Some of their features I would use
in real life circumstances, some not. I am practicing C, not math, not
fin analysis. I have taken the task of computing pro forma statements
only because I know the topic well, and don't need to think about
it, while writing the program, so I can concentrate only on C.
Let alone the whole program makes no sense because all this 
stuff is done in 15 minutes in  excel spreadsheet with a few tabs 
and quite extensive fin reports. So I wouldn't even think about 
attempting to trump excel. 
I have said the above many many times. So I got so confused when
the whole discussion has started, and it seems that everyone simply
has ignored my words. 
Is it clear now? 
And, as James has tried to explain, I do have problems with 
C because these mean functions do not do the job I want them to do.
This what I have to correct.
Still I am not dropping my remark that geo mean is not used 
for a set of negative numbers. )))) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103042

Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:37:25 AM UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> writes:
>> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 11:41:08 PM UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> Personally, I'd like to see a rationale for the way your
>> >> mean_twonums() function works.
>> [...]
>> 
>> > Yes, I understand it.
>> 
>> I didn't ask whether you understand it.  I'm saying I don't understand
>> it, and I'm asking you to explain it.  Do you refuse to do so?
>> 
> No, I do not refuse to explain anything. But I am flabbergasted
> by the whole discussion because I have explained myself from the 
> very start, and did make explicit remarks on what and why I am 
> doing with this program. I have said quite a few times that this is
> not a rigorously correct program that deals with real life situations,
> although it does contain the majority of usual basic tools of fin
> analysis. But it also contains features that I have added for the sake
> of programming in C, to make the program more extensive, to add
> some features, which might be useful for me in future, to work on 
> some C issues I wanted to work, etc.
[...]

So your geomean() function doesn't compute anything useful, and it was
never intended to?

I question the usefulness of doing something like that.  It means you
can't really tell whether your program is working correctly, because
there's no such thing as correctness.

And no, it wasn't clear (to me at least, and apparently to several
others) that that's what you were doing.  Your evasiveness when asked
what the function means was not helpful, and we wasted time trying to
figure out the meaning of something that apparently didn't have one.

Or am I still misunderstanding?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103062

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 7:32:30 PM UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:37:25 AM UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 11:41:08 PM UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >> Personally, I'd like to see a rationale for the way your
> >> >> mean_twonums() function works.
> >> [...]
> >> 
> >> > Yes, I understand it.
> >> 
> >> I didn't ask whether you understand it.  I'm saying I don't understand
> >> it, and I'm asking you to explain it.  Do you refuse to do so?
> >> 
> > No, I do not refuse to explain anything. But I am flabbergasted
> > by the whole discussion because I have explained myself from the 
> > very start, and did make explicit remarks on what and why I am 
> > doing with this program. I have said quite a few times that this is
> > not a rigorously correct program that deals with real life situations,
> > although it does contain the majority of usual basic tools of fin
> > analysis. But it also contains features that I have added for the sake
> > of programming in C, to make the program more extensive, to add
> > some features, which might be useful for me in future, to work on 
> > some C issues I wanted to work, etc.
> [...]
> 
> So your geomean() function doesn't compute anything useful, and it was
> never intended to?
> 
> I question the usefulness of doing something like that.  It means you
> can't really tell whether your program is working correctly, because
> there's no such thing as correctness.
> 
> And no, it wasn't clear (to me at least, and apparently to several
> others) that that's what you were doing.  Your evasiveness when asked
> what the function means was not helpful, and we wasted time trying to
> figure out the meaning of something that apparently didn't have one.
> 
> Or am I still misunderstanding?
Keith, I am truly sorry to hear that my answers came across as evasive. 
I have very explicitly showed what and how I am computing with all those
functions. I sort of (and this "sort of" is important) stopped replying to 
each 'why' only because I am confused - I have explained myself, but 
seems that people have taken to writing and questioning about what 
I have explained a few times; or we have completely misunderstood 
each other. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103064

On 03/02/17 18:39, Alla _ wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 7:32:30 PM UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote:

<snip>

>> [...] Your evasiveness when asked
>> what the function means was not helpful, and we wasted time trying to
>> figure out the meaning of something that apparently didn't have one.
>>
>> Or am I still misunderstanding?
> Keith, I am truly sorry to hear that my answers came across as evasive.

I wouldn't have said "evasive", although I can see why the word was 
used. Rather, I would have said that you had signally failed to 
understand the question, and thus didn't know what kind of answer to 
provide.

> I have very explicitly showed what and how I am computing with all those
> functions.

Let me give you an example from the other direction. Let's pretend I've 
been asking for help with some code, and I keep mentioning a function 
named gatewise(). You ask me what gatewise() does, and I explain as follows:

double gatewise(int m, double y, int g, int c, double v)
{
   int s = 17;
   int f = 29;
   double x = 3.14402;

   while(m > s && c < f || sqrt(y) * atan(4.0) > 7.12)
   {
     double d = pow(f * y, 1.0 / 3.0);
     f /= 2.0;
here:
     d *= 2.0;
     switch(g)
     {
       case 6: x *= 7.16; break;
       case 42: x *= 3.93 * y; return x;
       case 17: y += s++; break;
       default: --m; y -= v; break;
     }
     if(g++ > 42)
     {
       g = 0;
       continue;
     }
     else if(d < v)
     {
       g /= 2;
       goto here;
     }
   }
   return y;
}

Does that help you to understand what gatewise() does? Do you think 
gatewise() is a well-written function with a simple and coherent objective?

And if you still don't know what it does, would you be satisfied if I 
were to say "but I showed you the code!"

A function should do *one* job, and do it well.

If it calculates the geometric mean, fine. But don't make it calculate 
the geometric mean in some circumstances and the arithmetic mean in 
others. Don't make it calculate the not-quite-geometric mean when the 
inputs aren't quite to your liking. If the inputs allow you to calculate 
a geometric mean, great! But if they don't, return an error instead of 
trying to bodge up some kind of result.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103066

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
[...]
> A function should do *one* job, and do it well.
>
> If it calculates the geometric mean, fine. But don't make it calculate 
> the geometric mean in some circumstances and the arithmetic mean in 
> others. Don't make it calculate the not-quite-geometric mean when the 
> inputs aren't quite to your liking. If the inputs allow you to calculate 
> a geometric mean, great! But if they don't, return an error instead of 
> trying to bodge up some kind of result.

Unless perhaps there's some very good reason in the problem domain
whereby calculating the geometric mean for some inputs and something
else for other inputs actually makes sense.

It would probably still be better to have a straightforward geomean()
function that's called by your maybe_geomean_maybe_something_else()
function, though geometric mean is simple enough that a well-delimited
block within a single function *might* be defensible.

But I still have no idea why you'd want to do what Alla's geomean()
function does.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103120

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 10:07:34 PM UTC+3, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 03/02/17 18:39, Alla _ wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 7:32:30 PM UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >> [...] Your evasiveness when asked
> >> what the function means was not helpful, and we wasted time trying to
> >> figure out the meaning of something that apparently didn't have one.
> >>
> >> Or am I still misunderstanding?
> > Keith, I am truly sorry to hear that my answers came across as evasive.
> 
> I wouldn't have said "evasive", although I can see why the word was 
> used. Rather, I would have said that you had signally failed to 
> understand the question, and thus didn't know what kind of answer to 
> provide.
> 
> > I have very explicitly showed what and how I am computing with all those
> > functions.
> 
> Let me give you an example from the other direction. Let's pretend I've 
> been asking for help with some code, and I keep mentioning a function 
> named gatewise(). You ask me what gatewise() does, and I explain as follows:
> 
> double gatewise(int m, double y, int g, int c, double v)
> {
>    int s = 17;
>    int f = 29;
>    double x = 3.14402;
> 
>    while(m > s && c < f || sqrt(y) * atan(4.0) > 7.12)
>    {
>      double d = pow(f * y, 1.0 / 3.0);
>      f /= 2.0;
> here:
>      d *= 2.0;
>      switch(g)
>      {
>        case 6: x *= 7.16; break;
>        case 42: x *= 3.93 * y; return x;
>        case 17: y += s++; break;
>        default: --m; y -= v; break;
>      }
>      if(g++ > 42)
>      {
>        g = 0;
>        continue;
>      }
>      else if(d < v)
>      {
>        g /= 2;
>        goto here;
>      }
>    }
>    return y;
> }
> 
> Does that help you to understand what gatewise() does? Do you think 
> gatewise() is a well-written function with a simple and coherent objective?
> 
> And if you still don't know what it does, would you be satisfied if I 
> were to say "but I showed you the code!"
That is not what I did. I did explain what I am doing in words, as well
as in numbers. I have showed specific calculations long time ago,
I have revealed who this exact part would be calculated before and 
upon posting the code. 
But reading what you have said below I see what you mean. Yes,
I still fail to make every function do only one job, and therefore
they usually look as a hodgepodge of things, though useful ones. 
> 
> A function should do *one* job, and do it well.
> 
> If it calculates the geometric mean, fine. But don't make it calculate 
> the geometric mean in some circumstances and the arithmetic mean in 
> others. Don't make it calculate the not-quite-geometric mean when the 
> inputs aren't quite to your liking. If the inputs allow you to calculate 
> a geometric mean, great! But if they don't, return an error instead of 
> trying to bodge up some kind of result.
> 
> -- 
> Richard Heathfield
> Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103124

On 04/02/17 05:25, Alla _ wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 10:07:34 PM UTC+3, Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

>> And if you still don't know what it does, would you be satisfied if I
>> were to say "but I showed you the code!"
> That is not what I did. I did explain what I am doing in words, as well
> as in numbers.

And yet people are still asking you what the code is supposed to do. 
This must surely suggest to you that your intent is not clear?

> But reading what you have said below I see what you mean. Yes,
> I still fail to make every function do only one job, and therefore
> they usually look as a hodgepodge of things, though useful ones.

Less useful than they would be if they did only one thing.

A function that does only /one/ job scores in many important respects 
over a Swiss army function.

1) easier to write;
2) easier to read;
3) easier to understand;
4) easier to explain to other people;
5) easier to debug;
6) easier to test;
7) easier to use;
8) easier to maintain;
9) easier to re-use in other programs.

People are asking you what the code does because they don't understand 
it. Some of the people doing the asking are very bright people. If they 
don't understand it, how is the person who marks your code going to 
understand it?

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103125

On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 12:01:49 PM UTC+3, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 04/02/17 05:25, Alla _ wrote:
> > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 10:07:34 PM UTC+3, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >> And if you still don't know what it does, would you be satisfied if I
> >> were to say "but I showed you the code!"
> > That is not what I did. I did explain what I am doing in words, as well
> > as in numbers.
> 
> And yet people are still asking you what the code is supposed to do. 
> This must surely suggest to you that your intent is not clear?
> 
> > But reading what you have said below I see what you mean. Yes,
> > I still fail to make every function do only one job, and therefore
> > they usually look as a hodgepodge of things, though useful ones.
> 
> Less useful than they would be if they did only one thing.
> 
> A function that does only /one/ job scores in many important respects 
> over a Swiss army function.
> 
> 1) easier to write;
> 2) easier to read;
> 3) easier to understand;
> 4) easier to explain to other people;
> 5) easier to debug;
> 6) easier to test;
> 7) easier to use;
> 8) easier to maintain;
> 9) easier to re-use in other programs.
> 
I understand it. Have to work on it. 
> People are asking you what the code does because they don't understand 
> it. Some of the people doing the asking are very bright people.
That's almost the only thing I am sure about. Hence heed to every word said
(written to be precise). 
> If they 
> don't understand it, how is the person who marks your code going to 
> understand it?
No one is going to mark my code, unless you wish to do so ))) But:
(1) I won't dare to ask;
(2) I don't need to show you the code to know that your mark will be 0
in 0-10 range )

> 
> -- 
> Richard Heathfield
> Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103146

On 02/04/2017 12:25 AM, Alla _ wrote:
...
> That is not what I did. I did explain what I am doing in words, as well
> as in numbers. I have showed specific calculations long time ago,

You've never explained the peculiar features of your calculation, you 
have only asserted that they are correct. When I've posted messages 
pointing out the features of your calculation that seem peculiar, along 
with explanations of why they are peculiar, you've responded only by 
flatly asserting that they are correct, or by apologizing for not having 
had time to review the details of my message. You've never actually 
addressed the issues I've raised.
I've repeated those issues many times already, but for your convenience, 
I've provided a summary of those issues as part of a response to a 
different message of yours on this same thread.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103144

On 02/03/2017 01:39 PM, Alla _ wrote:
...
> Keith, I am truly sorry to hear that my answers came across as evasive.

It's not your answers that come across as evasive. Its the questions you 
evade answering that give that impression.

> I have very explicitly showed what and how I am computing with all those
> functions. I sort of (and this "sort of" is important) stopped replying to
> each 'why' only because I am confused - I have explained myself, but
> seems that people have taken to writing and questioning about what
> I have explained a few times; or we have completely misunderstood
> each other.

You keep getting questions because the explanations you've provided 
don't work. Examples:

1. This function calculates the geometric mean.
No, it doesn't. Ben provided examples of subroutines arith_mean(), 
geom_mean(), and mean_of_changes(). Your program does the equivalent of 
calling one of those three functions, chosen based upon the values of 
the arguments, but of those three, only geom_mean() returns the true 
geometric mean of its arguments (as implied by the name). 
mean_of_changes() calculates a geometric mean as an intermediate step. 
However, it doesn't calculate the geometric mean of its arguments, and 
the value it does return isn't the geometric mean that it calculated.
Your function is a weird amalgam of those three functions.

2. This a standard function in financial calculations.
If you'd been correct to describe your function as calculating the 
geometric mean, you would have been right on this point, too. 
geom_mean(), which does calculate the geometric mean, does correspond to 
a calculation frequently performed in financial contexts (though I would 
expect it to seldom, if ever, be performed by a function that calculates 
the mean of only two numbers). The same is true of arith_mean() and 
mean_of_changes(). However, a function that switches between those three 
functions in the way that yours does is not at all standard.

3. The if()s in your function serve to handle negative numbers correctly.
Mathematically, there's absolutely no reason why you need to avoid 
negative numbers when calculating the geometric mean. For instance, the 
geometric mean of -1, -3, and -9 is (-27)^(1/3) = -3. However, negative 
numbers are domain errors for pow() if the exponent is not an integer. 
You could use cpow(), for which that isn't a problem, but a value with a 
non-zero imaginary component would normally make sense only in a 
scientific or engineering context.
In financial contexts, it usually makes sense to take the geometric mean 
of a series of numbers only if they're all positive or all negative. 
Furthermore, accountants go out of the way to define the numbers that 
they calculate so that they are inherently non-negative. Therefore a 
geom_mean(x,y) function which rejected negative values for x or y would 
make a certain amount of sense. For the same reason, a mean_of_changes() 
routine which rejected negative values for 1.0+x or 1.0+y would also be 
reasonable. But that's not what your function does; it simply changes 
which function it calculates. It also changes behavior if -1.0+y or 
-1.0+x would be negative - since your function never calculates either 
of those expressions, avoiding the case where they would be negative 
makes no sense.
What's worse, your if()s don't even avoid the domain errors: if 
number1<=-1.0 and number2 is between 0 and 1.0, it calls pow() with an 
argument of number1*number2, which is negative. Since your function is 
symmetrical, the same is true if number2 <= -1.0 and number1 is between 
0 and 1.0.

4. This function is not important, it's just something you put together 
quickly to test you understanding of C.
If that were the case, it should have been something simple. Of Ben's 
three subroutines, mean_of_changes() the most complicated, and I also 
think it's probably the one most appropriate for your intended use of 
this function. I can't think of any reason why you should have written 
anything more complicated than mean_of_changes() - but that's what you 
ended up doing.
Keith has nominally accepted that your function is meaningless, and was 
never intended to be meaningful. However, I don't think that's what you 
actually meant. I think it's far more likely that you intended this 
function to be meaningful, and it became meaningless because you 
complicated it without adequate justification and without correctly 
understanding the consequences of your complications.

You claim to not have been evasive, but every message I've posted 
recently on this thread has given detailed explanations of issues with 
your function that suggest it is not correct. You've never responded to 
any of the following issues; all you've done is, in some cases, assert 
that I was wrong without providing any support for that claim, and in 
others, apologized for not having had time to carefully review the 
issues I raised:

1. Why does it calculate three different functions, depending upon the 
values of number1 and number2? Each of those functions would be entirely 
appropriate for different kinds of data, but you don't switch based upon 
the kind of data you're working with, but only on the values of the 
data. Are you actually working with three different types of data, and 
the values of the data give you clues as to which type it is?

2. Why is the function that it calculates discontinuous at each of the 
following places:

    number2 == 1.0 and number1 < 1.0
    number1 == 1.0 and number2 < 1.0
    number1 == -1.0 and number2 between -1.0 and 1.0
    number2 == -1.0 and number1 between -1.0 and 1.0

There are contexts where it might make sense to calculate using 
discontinuous functions - in particular, legislators frequently pass 
laws requiring financial calculations to be performed using look-up 
tables that implement a piece-wise constant approximation to a smooth 
curve - but that doesn't seem to apply to your function.

Another case that comes up frequently in financial contests is a 
function that has two or more different forms - but switches between 
them in a continuous fashion. This requires identifying the locations 
where the two functions have the same value, and switching between the 
functions only in those locations. The arithmetic mean of x and y and 
the geometric mean of x and y are equal to each other only in those 
locations where x == y. Therefore, there might be a context where the 
following function might make sense:

    double arith_geom_mean(double x, double y)
    {
         if(x < y)
             return (x+y)*0.5;
         else
             return pow(x*y, 0.5);
    }

However, that function is not symmetric, which implies that x and y are 
values with different meanings. Your function is intended to be used on 
consecutive values of a time series - such asymmetry doesn't make sense 
in that context.

3. Your function returns a value of exactly 0 for each of the following 
cases:

     number1 == 0.0 and number2 between -1.0 and 1.0
     number2 == 0.0 and number1 between -1.0 and 1.0

Why does it do this? This is particularly puzzling because the value 
calculated by your function is quite different in the nearby cases where

     number1 has a small non-zero value and
         number2 is between -1.0 and 1.0

     number2 has a small non-zero value and
         number1 is between -1.0 and 1.0

These are double-sided discontinuities,

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103063

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 7:32:30 PM UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:37:25 AM UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 11:41:08 PM UTC+3, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >> Personally, I'd like to see a rationale for the way your
> >> >> mean_twonums() function works.
> >> [...]
> >> 
> >> > Yes, I understand it.
> >> 
> >> I didn't ask whether you understand it.  I'm saying I don't understand
> >> it, and I'm asking you to explain it.  Do you refuse to do so?
> >> 
> > No, I do not refuse to explain anything. But I am flabbergasted
> > by the whole discussion because I have explained myself from the 
> > very start, and did make explicit remarks on what and why I am 
> > doing with this program. I have said quite a few times that this is
> > not a rigorously correct program that deals with real life situations,
> > although it does contain the majority of usual basic tools of fin
> > analysis. But it also contains features that I have added for the sake
> > of programming in C, to make the program more extensive, to add
> > some features, which might be useful for me in future, to work on 
> > some C issues I wanted to work, etc.
> [...]
> 
> So your geomean() function doesn't compute anything useful, and it was
> never intended to?
> 
> I question the usefulness of doing something like that.  It means you
> can't really tell whether your program is working correctly, because
> there's no such thing as correctness.
> 
> And no, it wasn't clear (to me at least, and apparently to several
> others) that that's what you were doing.  Your evasiveness when asked
> what the function means was not helpful, and we wasted time trying to
> figure out the meaning of something that apparently didn't have one.
> 
> Or am I still misunderstanding?
Here is what those mean functions were doing, based on a very short 
example. 
Three years of historic data.

Income statement:
Depreciation and amortization expense:
year1  $1
year2 $3
year3 $5

Balance sheet:
Gross ppe:
year1 $10
year2 $11
year3 $12
Intangibles:
year1 $5
year2 $8
year3 $9

The most basic approach to compute depreciation expense
for pro forma statement (apart from using only common size 
data):
Compute the rate of depreciation expense in 
gross ppe and intangibles for each year (depreciation expense/
sum of averages of gross ppe and intangibles), and take the average
of those.  
rate of depreciation and amortization expense = 
average (  
                 3 /  ((average(10,11)+average(5,8)) ;
                 5 / ((average(11,12) + average(8,9)))

Instead of using arithmetic averages in denominators, 
I use that geo means function, which is not truly needed
here, but if numbers are negative then I use arithmetic mean
(or not yet - still have not studied James' explanation; couldn't 
these days; will do it tomorrow). 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#103147

On 02/03/2017 02:02 PM, Alla _ wrote:
...
> Instead of using arithmetic averages in denominators,
> I use that geo means function, which is not truly needed
> here, but if numbers are negative then I use arithmetic mean

That's the point you haven't explained yet, despite have been repeatedly 
asked to explain it for more than a week now, since you first gave us 
your definition of mean_twonums(). Why do you consider it appropriate to 
calculate three different kinds of mean (not just the two you mention 
above), and why do you think you've correctly identified the way to 
switch between those different forms (I don't think you have, for 
reasons I've repeatedly explained, to which you have not yet 
meaningfully responded).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#102801

On 30/01/17 18:39, Alla _ wrote:

<snip>

> I think that one of the trolls here in this group, who occasionally writes
> things about me, is actually right.

That's very unlikely.

> You have most likely seen those posts.

That's very unlikely, too. Nowadays I tend to kill-file trolls.

> I should leave the group because, as you have also righteously mentioned
>  a few times, my posts are irrelevant to this group and they truly degrade it,
> let alone vex everyone.

I think two of those points are incorrect.

Firstly, your articles are certainly not irrelevant to this group. On 
the contrary, they are bang on topic.

Secondly, your articles certainly do not degrade this group. On the 
contrary, they enhance it by encouraging all kinds of topical discussions.

Thirdly, it has to be said that your articles do vex us sometimes 
(because you have a maddening habit of rushing on ahead and getting 
yourself into all kinds of avoidable tangles), but I think that's a 
price worth paying for articles that do actually provoke a considerable 
amount of fruitful discussion about the language.


> I should look for a proper course on C, learn the language, and try to reach
>  a good professional knowledge of the subject.

Oh dear. Some of us have been waiting quite patiently for you to finish 
all your C courses, so that we can get on with teaching you C and giving 
you the good professional knowledge of the subject that you seem doomed 
never to gain from your courses. Was our waiting in vain?

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#102869

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 12:19:35 AM UTC+3, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 30/01/17 18:39, Alla _ wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > I think that one of the trolls here in this group, who occasionally writes
> > things about me, is actually right.
> 
> That's very unlikely.
> 
> > You have most likely seen those posts.
> 
> That's very unlikely, too. Nowadays I tend to kill-file trolls.
> 
> > I should leave the group because, as you have also righteously mentioned
> >  a few times, my posts are irrelevant to this group and they truly degrade it,
> > let alone vex everyone.
> 
> I think two of those points are incorrect.
> 
> Firstly, your articles are certainly not irrelevant to this group. On 
> the contrary, they are bang on topic.
> 
> Secondly, your articles certainly do not degrade this group. On the 
> contrary, they enhance it by encouraging all kinds of topical discussions.
> 
> Thirdly, it has to be said that your articles do vex us sometimes 
> (because you have a maddening habit of rushing on ahead and getting 
> yourself into all kinds of avoidable tangles), but I think that's a 
> price worth paying for articles that do actually provoke a considerable 
> amount of fruitful discussion about the language.
Oh, how interesting! )
> 
> 
> > I should look for a proper course on C, learn the language, and try to reach
> >  a good professional knowledge of the subject.
> 
> Oh dear. Some of us have been waiting quite patiently for you to finish 
> all your C courses, so that we can get on with teaching you C and giving 
> you the good professional knowledge of the subject that you seem doomed 
> never to gain from your courses. Was our waiting in vain?
> 
A few days ago I recall it was "impatiently". Yeh, time does its job )

I don't take any, but one, only one course, and it is not a particularly C one.
And in fact I am done with it. And I am almost done with my program,
which, as I have mentioned elsewhere, does run afoul of my sense of
elegance and beauty; shortly, it looks rather ugly. I hope to re-write it
once I have a much better knowledge and understanding of the 
language.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#102871

On 31/01/17 21:10, Alla _ wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 12:19:35 AM UTC+3, Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>
>>
>> Some of us have been waiting quite patiently [...]
>>
> A few days ago I recall it was "impatiently".

She's keeping notes! Everybody run!

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#102874

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:18:12 AM UTC+3, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 31/01/17 21:10, Alla _ wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 12:19:35 AM UTC+3, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> >>
> >> Some of us have been waiting quite patiently [...]
> >>
> > A few days ago I recall it was "impatiently".
> 
> She's keeping notes! Everybody run!
> 
That's called natural memory.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web