Search Results

Search found 142 results on 6 pages for 'deterministic'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 2/6 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >

  • created persisted computed columns when the user defined scalar function appears to be non-determini

    - by Ralph Shillington
    I have a scalar UDF that I know to be deterministic, however SQL doesn't. Is there a way to declare it as deterministic so that I can then use it in a persisted computed column definition? further clarification: The purpose of this exercise is that I need to harvest out specific values from an XML column on the row. I can't use the value method of the xml column in my computed column definition, but I can use it in a UDF. I know the xpath query in the value method will produce the same output give the same input so while I certainly understand that not all calls to value will be deterministic I want to assert that mine is.

    Read the article

  • Visualize flowchart diagram with multiple end symbols

    - by platzhirsch
    I am looking for a standardize way to visualize the following hierarchical logic: The state of the thread is represented by the answers to the hierarchical set of question You can read this listing like a flowchart, you iterate over the questions decide, go one step deeper and so on. Therefore I thought the best way to visualize it, using a flowchart. The problem is, in this hierarchical set it is possible to end in more than one state and its totally valid. I have never seen a flowchart where you can enter more than one state. Is it still possible and I am missing the right symbol to present this logic or are flowchart not fitting anyway? What other graphical representation could I use, is there something fitting in UML? A non-deterministic state machine seems not to be intuitive enough, transfering it into a deterministic state machine would result in to many states, and so on.

    Read the article

  • Visualize flowchart diagram with multiple end symbols

    - by platzhirsch
    I am looking for a standardize way to visualize the following hierarchical logic: The state of the thread is represented by the answers to the hierarchical set of question You can read this listing like a flowchart, you iterate over the questions decide, go one step deeper and so on. Therefore I thought the best way to visualize it, using a flowchart. The problem is, in this hierarchical set it is possible to end in more than one state and its totally valid. I have never seen a flowchart where you can enter more than one state. Is it still possible and I am missing the right symbol to present this logic or are flowchart not fitting anyway? What other graphical representation could I use, is there something fitting in UML? A non-deterministic state machine seems not to be intuitive enough, transfering it into a deterministic state machine would result in to many states, and so on.

    Read the article

  • Why is it impossible to produce truly random numbers?

    - by Vinoth Kumar
    I was trying to solve a hobby problem that required generating a million random numbers. But I quickly realized, it is becoming difficult to make them unique. I picked up Algorithm Design Manual to read about random number generation. It has the following paragraph that I am fully not able to understand. Unfortunately, generating random numbers looks a lot easier than it really is. Indeed, it is fundamentally impossible to produce truly random numbers on any deterministic device. Von Neumann [Neu63] said it best: “Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin.” The best we can hope for are pseudo-random numbers, a stream of numbers that appear as if they were generated randomly. Why is it impossible to produce truly random numbers in any deterministic device? What does this sentence mean?

    Read the article

  • Fastest primality test

    - by Grigory Javadyan
    Hi. Could you suggest a fast, deterministic method that is usable in practice, for testing if a large number is prime or not? Also, I would like to know how to use non-deterministic primality tests correctly. For example, if I'm using such a method, I can be sure that a number is not prime if the output is "no", but what about the other case, when the output is "probably"? Do I have to test for primality manually in this case? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Does concurrency inherently introduce "randomness" into a game?

    - by Jeff
    When a game is implemented with concurrency (as most games are), does this necessarily, by its very nature, introduce an element of randomness into the game that is outside of the players' control? Note that when I use the word "random", I'm not meaning to launch into a philosophical debate about the deterministic nature of the system. I understand that concurrency is deterministic in the sense that the operating system decides which processes to allow time on the CPU and in what order (or the JVM controls which Thread's turn it is to execute, etc). But my understanding of this is that there is no way to control or predict whether one thread's next command will execute before or after another. The reason I'm asking is because this seems like a fundamental difficulty for game development where a game is supposedly designed around a player's skill. Consider a game like League of Legends. Assume that two players are battling it out. It's a very close contest between the two and it's coming down to the wire -- so much so that whoever gets their last attack off will be the one to kill the other and win the game for their team. If the players are implemented using concurrency and the situation really was like this, is it essentially out of the players' hands at this point? Is the outcome of this match all up to whatever system is arbitrarily deciding which player's thread/process will execute next? If not, what am I misunderstanding about concurrency? If so, is there any way around this problem so that a game of skill can always be a game of skill, especially in those most crucial moments?

    Read the article

  • Determinism in multiplayer simulation with Box2D, and single computer

    - by Jake
    I wrote a small test car driving multiplayer game with Box2D using TCP server-client communcations. I ran 1 instance of server.exe and 2 instance of client.exe on the same machine that I code and compile the executables. I type inputs (WASD for a simple car movement) into one of the 2 clients and I can get both clients to update the simulation. There are 2 cars in the simulation. As long as the cars do not collide, I get the same identical output on both client.exe. I can run the car(s) around for as long as I could they still update the same. However, if I start to collide the cars, very quickly they go out of sync. My tools: Windows 7, C++, MSVS 2010, Box2D, freeGlut. My Psuedocode: // client.exe void timer(int value) { tcpServer.send(my_inputs); foreach(i = player including myself) inputs[i] = tcpServer.receive(); foreach(i = player including myself) players[i].process(inputs[i]); myb2World.step(33, 8, 6); // Box2D world step simulation foreach(i = player including myself) renderer.render(player[i]); glutTimerFunc(33, timer, 0); } // server.exe void serviceloop { while(all clients alive) { foreach(c = clients) tcpClients[c].receive(&inputs[c]); // send input of each client to all clients foreach(source = clients) { foreach(dest = clients) { tcpClients[dest].send(inputs[source]); } } } } I have read all over the internet and SE the following claims (paraphrased): Box2D is deterministic as long as floating point architecture/implementation is the same. (For any deterministic engine) Determinism is gauranteed if playback of recorded inputs is on the same machine with exe compiled using same compiler and machine. Additionally my server.exe and client.exe gameloop is single thread with blocking socket calls and fixed time step. Question: Can anyone explain what I did wrong to get different Box2D output?

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Faster SQL Server Databases and Applications – Power and Control with SafePeak Caching Options

    - by Pinal Dave
    Update: This blog post is written based on the SafePeak, which is available for free download. Today, I’d like to examine more closely one of my preferred technologies for accelerating SQL Server databases, SafePeak. Safepeak’s software provides a variety of advanced data caching options, techniques and tools to accelerate the performance and scalability of SQL Server databases and applications. I’d like to look more closely at some of these options, as some of these capabilities could help you address lagging database and performance on your systems. To better understand the available options, it is best to start by understanding the difference between the usual “Basic Caching” vs. SafePeak’s “Dynamic Caching”. Basic Caching Basic Caching (or the stale and static cache) is an ability to put the results from a query into cache for a certain period of time. It is based on TTL, or Time-to-live, and is designed to stay in cache no matter what happens to the data. For example, although the actual data can be modified due to DML commands (update/insert/delete), the cache will still hold the same obsolete query data. Meaning that with the Basic Caching is really static / stale cache.  As you can tell, this approach has its limitations. Dynamic Caching Dynamic Caching (or the non-stale cache) is an ability to put the results from a query into cache while maintaining the cache transaction awareness looking for possible data modifications. The modifications can come as a result of: DML commands (update/insert/delete), indirect modifications due to triggers on other tables, executions of stored procedures with internal DML commands complex cases of stored procedures with multiple levels of internal stored procedures logic. When data modification commands arrive, the caching system identifies the related cache items and evicts them from cache immediately. In the dynamic caching option the TTL setting still exists, although its importance is reduced, since the main factor for cache invalidation (or cache eviction) become the actual data updates commands. Now that we have a basic understanding of the differences between “basic” and “dynamic” caching, let’s dive in deeper. SafePeak: A comprehensive and versatile caching platform SafePeak comes with a wide range of caching options. Some of SafePeak’s caching options are automated, while others require manual configuration. Together they provide a complete solution for IT and Data managers to reach excellent performance acceleration and application scalability for  a wide range of business cases and applications. Automated caching of SQL Queries: Fully/semi-automated caching of all “read” SQL queries, containing any types of data, including Blobs, XMLs, Texts as well as all other standard data types. SafePeak automatically analyzes the incoming queries, categorizes them into SQL Patterns, identifying directly and indirectly accessed tables, views, functions and stored procedures; Automated caching of Stored Procedures: Fully or semi-automated caching of all read” stored procedures, including procedures with complex sub-procedure logic as well as procedures with complex dynamic SQL code. All procedures are analyzed in advance by SafePeak’s  Metadata-Learning process, their SQL schemas are parsed – resulting with a full understanding of the underlying code, objects dependencies (tables, views, functions, sub-procedures) enabling automated or semi-automated (manually review and activate by a mouse-click) cache activation, with full understanding of the transaction logic for cache real-time invalidation; Transaction aware cache: Automated cache awareness for SQL transactions (SQL and in-procs); Dynamic SQL Caching: Procedures with dynamic SQL are pre-parsed, enabling easy cache configuration, eliminating SQL Server load for parsing time and delivering high response time value even in most complicated use-cases; Fully Automated Caching: SQL Patterns (including SQL queries and stored procedures) that are categorized by SafePeak as “read and deterministic” are automatically activated for caching; Semi-Automated Caching: SQL Patterns categorized as “Read and Non deterministic” are patterns of SQL queries and stored procedures that contain reference to non-deterministic functions, like getdate(). Such SQL Patterns are reviewed by the SafePeak administrator and in usually most of them are activated manually for caching (point and click activation); Fully Dynamic Caching: Automated detection of all dependent tables in each SQL Pattern, with automated real-time eviction of the relevant cache items in the event of “write” commands (a DML or a stored procedure) to one of relevant tables. A default setting; Semi Dynamic Caching: A manual cache configuration option enabling reducing the sensitivity of specific SQL Patterns to “write” commands to certain tables/views. An optimization technique relevant for cases when the query data is either known to be static (like archive order details), or when the application sensitivity to fresh data is not critical and can be stale for short period of time (gaining better performance and reduced load); Scheduled Cache Eviction: A manual cache configuration option enabling scheduling SQL Pattern cache eviction based on certain time(s) during a day. A very useful optimization technique when (for example) certain SQL Patterns can be cached but are time sensitive. Example: “select customers that today is their birthday”, an SQL with getdate() function, which can and should be cached, but the data stays relevant only until 00:00 (midnight); Parsing Exceptions Management: Stored procedures that were not fully parsed by SafePeak (due to too complex dynamic SQL or unfamiliar syntax), are signed as “Dynamic Objects” with highest transaction safety settings (such as: Full global cache eviction, DDL Check = lock cache and check for schema changes, and more). The SafePeak solution points the user to the Dynamic Objects that are important for cache effectiveness, provides easy configuration interface, allowing you to improve cache hits and reduce cache global evictions. Usually this is the first configuration in a deployment; Overriding Settings of Stored Procedures: Override the settings of stored procedures (or other object types) for cache optimization. For example, in case a stored procedure SP1 has an “insert” into table T1, it will not be allowed to be cached. However, it is possible that T1 is just a “logging or instrumentation” table left by developers. By overriding the settings a user can allow caching of the problematic stored procedure; Advanced Cache Warm-Up: Creating an XML-based list of queries and stored procedure (with lists of parameters) for periodically automated pre-fetching and caching. An advanced tool allowing you to handle more rare but very performance sensitive queries pre-fetch them into cache allowing high performance for users’ data access; Configuration Driven by Deep SQL Analytics: All SQL queries are continuously logged and analyzed, providing users with deep SQL Analytics and Performance Monitoring. Reduce troubleshooting from days to minutes with database objects and SQL Patterns heat-map. The performance driven configuration helps you to focus on the most important settings that bring you the highest performance gains. Use of SafePeak SQL Analytics allows continuous performance monitoring and analysis, easy identification of bottlenecks of both real-time and historical data; Cloud Ready: Available for instant deployment on Amazon Web Services (AWS). As you can see, there are many options to configure SafePeak’s SQL Server database and application acceleration caching technology to best fit a lot of situations. If you’re not familiar with their technology, they offer free-trial software you can download that comes with a free “help session” to help get you started. You can access the free trial here. Also, SafePeak is available to use on Amazon Cloud. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com)Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Performance, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL

    Read the article

  • Procedurally generated 2d terrain for side scroller on Sega Genesis hardware?

    - by DJCouchyCouch
    I'm working on the Sega Genesis that has a 8mhz Motorola 68000 CPU. Any ideas on how to generate fast and decent 2d tile terrain for a side scroller in real time? The game would generate new columns or rows depending on the direction the player is scrolling in. The generation would have to be deterministic. The same seed value would generate the same terrain. I'm looking for algorithms that would satisfy the memory and CPU constraints of the hardware.

    Read the article

  • Why can't Java/C# implement RAII?

    - by mike30
    Question: Why can't Java/C# implement RAII? Clarification: I am aware the garbage collector is not deterministic. So with the current language features it is not possible for an object's Dispose() method to be called automatically on scope exit. But could such a deterministic feature be added? My understanding: I feel an implementation of RAII must satisfy two requirements: 1. The lifetime of a resource must be bound to a scope. 2. Implicit. The freeing of the resource must happen without an explicit statement by the programmer. Analogous to a garbage collector freeing memory without an explicit statement. The "implicitness" only needs to occur at point of use of the class. The class library creator must of course explicitly implement a destructor or Dispose() method. Java/C# satisfy point 1. In C# a resource implementing IDisposable can be bound to a "using" scope: void test() { using(Resource r = new Resource()) { r.foo(); }//resource released on scope exit } This does not satisfy point 2. The programmer must explicitly tie the object to a special "using" scope. Programmers can (and do) forget to explicitly tie the resource to a scope, creating a leak. In fact the "using" blocks are converted to try-finally-dispose() code by the compiler. It has the same explicit nature of the try-finally-dispose() pattern. Without an implicit release, the hook to a scope is syntactic sugar. void test() { //Programmer forgot (or was not aware of the need) to explicitly //bind Resource to a scope. Resource r = new Resource(); r.foo(); }//resource leaked!!! I think it is worth creating a language feature in Java/C# allowing special objects that are hooked to the stack via a smart-pointer. The feature would allow you to flag a class as scope-bound, so that it always is created with a hook to the stack. There could be a options for different for different types of smart pointers. class Resource - ScopeBound { /* class details */ void Dispose() { //free resource } } void test() { //class Resource was flagged as ScopeBound so the tie to the stack is implicit. Resource r = new Resource(); //r is a smart-pointer r.foo(); }//resource released on scope exit. I think implicitness is "worth it". Just as the implicitness of garbage collection is "worth it". Explicit using blocks are refreshing on the eyes, but offer no semantic advantage over try-finally-dispose(). Is it impractical to implement such a feature into the Java/C# languages? Could it be introduced without breaking old code?

    Read the article

  • Rot13 for numbers.

    - by dreeves
    EDIT: Now a Major Motion Blog Post at http://messymatters.com/sealedbids The idea of rot13 is to obscure text, for example to prevent spoilers. It's not meant to be cryptographically secure but to simply make sure that only people who are sure they want to read it will read it. I'd like to do something similar for numbers, for an application involving sealed bids. Roughly I want to send someone my number and trust them to pick their own number, uninfluenced by mine, but then they should be able to reveal mine (purely client-side) when they're ready. They should not require further input from me or any third party. (Added: Note the assumption that the recipient is being trusted not to cheat.) It's not as simple as rot13 because certain numbers, like 1 and 2, will recur often enough that you might remember that, say, 34.2 is really 1. Here's what I'm looking for specifically: A function seal() that maps a real number to a real number (or a string). It should not be deterministic -- seal(7) should not map to the same thing every time. But the corresponding function unseal() should be deterministic -- unseal(seal(x)) should equal x for all x. I don't want seal or unseal to call any webservices or even get the system time (because I don't want to assume synchronized clocks). (Added: It's fine to assume that all bids will be less than some maximum, known to everyone, say a million.) Sanity check: > seal(7) 482.2382 # some random-seeming number or string. > seal(7) 71.9217 # a completely different random-seeming number or string. > unseal(seal(7)) 7 # we always recover the original number by unsealing.

    Read the article

  • How to control the order of module initialization in Prism

    - by Robert Taylor
    I'm using Prism V2 with a DirectoryModuleCatalog and I need the modules to be initialized in a certain order. The desired order is specified with an attribute on each IModule implementation. This is so that as each module is initialized, they add their View into a TabControl region and the order of the tabs needs to be deterministic and controlled by the module author. The order does not imply a dependency, but rather just an order that they should be initialized in. In other words: modules A, B, and C may have priorities of 1, 2, and 3 respectively. B does not have a dependency on A - it just needs to get loaded into the TabControl region after A. So that we have a deterministic and controllable order of the tabs. Also, B might not exist at runtime; so they would load as A, C because the priority should determine the order (1, 3). If i used the ModuleDependency, then module "C" will not be able to load w/o all of it's dependencies. I can manage the logic of how to sort the modules, but i can't figure out where to put said logic.

    Read the article

  • How to approach parallel processing of messages?

    - by Dan
    I am redesigning the messaging system for my app to use intel threading building blocks and am stumped trying to decide between two possible approaches. Basically, I have a sequence of message objects and for each message type, a sequence of handlers. For each message object, I apply each handler registered for that message objects type. The sequential version would be something like this (pseudocode): for each message in message_sequence <- SEQUENTIAL for each handler in (handler_table for message.type) apply handler to message <- SEQUENTIAL The first approach which I am considering processes the message objects in turn (sequentially) and applies the handlers concurrently. Pros: predictable ordering of messages (ie, we are guaranteed a FIFO processing order) (potentially) lower latency of processing each message Cons: more processing resources available than handlers for a single message type (bad parallelization) bad use of processor cache since message objects need to be copied for each handler to use large overhead for small handlers The pseudocode of this approach would be as follows: for each message in message_sequence <- SEQUENTIAL parallel_for each handler in (handler_table for message.type) apply handler to message <- PARALLEL The second approach is to process the messages in parallel and apply the handlers to each message sequentially. Pros: better use of processor cache (keeps the message object local to all handlers which will use it) small handlers don't impose as much overhead (as long as there are other handlers also to be run) more messages are expected than there are handlers, so the potential for parallelism is greater Cons: Unpredictable ordering - if message A is sent before message B, they may both be processed at the same time, or B may finish processing before all of A's handlers are finished (order is non-deterministic) The pseudocode is as follows: parallel_for each message in message_sequence <- PARALLEL for each handler in (handler_table for message.type) apply handler to message <- SEQUENTIAL The second approach has more advantages than the first, but non-deterministic ordering is a big disadvantage.. Which approach would you choose and why? Are there any other approaches I should consider (besides the obvious third approach: parallel messages and parallel handlers, which has the disadvantages of both and no real redeeming factors as far as I can tell)? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How can I generate an "unlimited" world?

    - by snowlord
    I would like to create a game with an endless (in reality an extremely large) world in which the player can move about. Whether or not I will ever get around to implement the game is one matter, but I find the idea interesting and would like some input on how to do it. The point is to have a world where all data is generated randomly on-demand, but in a deterministic way. Currently I focus on a large 2D map from which it should be possible to display any part without knowledge about the surrounding parts. I have implemented a prototype by writing a function that gives a random-looking, but deterministic, integer given the x and y of a pixel on the map (see my recent question about this function). Using this function I populate the map with "random" values, and then I smooth the map using a simple filter based on the surrounding pixels. This makes the map dependent on a few pixels outside its edge, but that's not a big problem. The final result is something that at least looks like a map (especially with a good altitude color map). Given this, one could maybe first generate a coarser map which is used to generate bigger differences in altitude to create mountain ranges and seas. Anyway, that was my idea, but I am sure that there exist ways to do this already and I also believe that given the specification, many of you can come up with better ideas. EDIT: Forgot the link to my question.

    Read the article

  • How should I account for the GC when building games with Unity?

    - by Eonil
    *As far as I know, Unity3D for iOS is based on the Mono runtime and Mono has only generational mark & sweep GC. This GC system can't avoid GC time which stops game system. Instance pooling can reduce this but not completely, because we can't control instantiation happens in the CLR's base class library. Those hidden small and frequent instances will raise un-deterministic GC time eventually. Forcing complete GC periodically will degrade performance greatly (can Mono force complete GC, actually?) So, how can I avoid this GC time when using Unity3D without huge performance degrade?

    Read the article

  • Should I use float, double, or decimal for stats, position, etc?

    - by Ryan Peschel
    The problem with float and double is that they are not exact. If you are to do something like store replays, the values would have to be exact. The problems with decimal is that they are approximately 16x slower (confirmed by searching and personal testing) than floats and doubles. Couldn't Vector2s be another problem because they use floats internally for all the components? How do other games solve this problem? I'm sure they must use floats and doubles but aren't they not deterministic across platforms and different architecture? The replay files for games like SC2 run in a linear fashion so you cannot skip ahead so how do they solve the determinism issue with floating point numbers?

    Read the article

  • update(100) behaves slightly different than 10 times update(10) - is that a problem? [on hold]

    - by futlib
    While looking into some test failures, I've identified an curious issue with my update logic. This: game.update(100); Behaves slightly different from: for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) game.update(10); The concrete example here is a rotating entity. It rotates by exactly 360 degrees in the first case, but only by about 352 in the second. This leads to slight variations in how things move, depending on the frame rate. Not enough to be noticeable in practice, but I did notice it when writing tests. Now my question is: Should this be fully deterministic, i.e. the outcome of update(1) * n should equal update(n) exactly? Or is it normal to have some variance and I should make my test assertions more generous?

    Read the article

  • What is an XYZ-complete problem?

    - by TheMachineCharmer
    EDIT: Diagram: http://www.cs.umass.edu/~immerman/complexity_theory.html There must be some meaning to the word "complete" its used every now and then. Look at the diagram. I tried reading previous posts about NP- My question is what does the word "COMPLETE" mean? Why is it there? What is its significance? N- Non-deterministic - makes sense' P- Polynomial - makes sense but the "COMPLETE" is still a mystery for me.

    Read the article

  • Could a truly random number be generated using pings to psuedo-randomly selected IP addresses?

    - by _ande_turner_
    The question posed came about during a 2nd Year Comp Science lecture while discussing the impossibility of generating numbers in a deterministic computational device. This was the only suggestion which didn't depend on non-commodity-class hardware. Subsequently nobody would put their reputation on the line to argue definitively for or against it. Anyone care to make a stand for or against. If so, how about a mention as to a possible implementation?

    Read the article

  • Distinct rand() sequences yielding the same results in an expression

    - by suszterpatt
    Ok, this is a really weird one. I have an MPI program, where each process has to generate random numbers in a fixed range (the range is read from file). What happens is that even though I seed each process with a different value, and the numbers generated by rand() are different in each process, the expression to generate the random numbers still yields the same sequence between them. Here's all relevant code: // 'rank' will be unique for each process int rank; MPI_Comm_rank(MPI_COMM_WORLD, &rank); // seed the RNG with a different value for each process srand(time(NULL) + rank); // print some random numbers to see if we get a unique sequence in each process // 'log' is a uniquely named file, each process has its own log << rand() << " " << rand() << " " << rand() << std::endl; // do boring deterministic stuff while (true) { // waitTimeMin and waitTimeMax are integers, Max is always greater than Min waitSecs = waitTimeMin + rand() % (waitTimeMax - waitTimeMin); log << "waiting " << waitSecs << " seconds" << std::endl; sleep(waitSecs); // do more boring deterministic stuff } Here's the output of each process, with 3 processes generating numbers in the range [1,9]. process 1: 15190 28284 3149 waiting 6 seconds waiting 8 seconds waiting 9 seconds waiting 4 seconds process 2: 286 6264 3153 waiting 6 seconds waiting 8 seconds waiting 9 seconds waiting 4 seconds process 3: 18151 17013 3156 waiting 6 seconds waiting 8 seconds waiting 9 seconds waiting 4 seconds So while rand() clearly generates different numbers, the expression to calculate waitSecs still evaluates to the same sequence on all processes. What's even weirder: if I run the program with the same parameteres again, only the first 3 random numbers will change, the rest of the "random" sequence will be exactly the same in each run! Changing the range of numbers will obviously produce a different result from this one, but the same parameters always yield the same sequence, between processes and between executions: except for the first 3 numbers. Just what the hell is going on here?

    Read the article

  • Iteration order of HashSet

    - by eljenso
    If every object added to a java.util.HashSet implements Object.equals() and Object.hashCode() in a deterministic fashion, is the iteration order over the HashSet guaranteed to be identical for every identical set of elements added, irrespective of the order in which they were added?

    Read the article

  • DB2 AS400 Java function always returns same value

    - by Nimrod Shory
    Hello, I am writing a user defined function to DB2 on AS/400 in Java and the strangest thing happen.. I am always getting the same result from the function even when i am changing it, even if i am dropping it and create it again and even when i specify NOT DETERMINISTIC.. Does any one have ever encountered a behavior like that?

    Read the article

  • Problem with Closure properties of context free languages

    - by altius
    hello i have the following sentence a language L1={a^n * b^n : n=0} and L2={b^n * a^n : n=0} are context free languages so they are close a=under the L1L2 so L={a^n * b^2n A^n : n=0} must be context free too because it is generated by a close property I have to prove if this sentence is true or not so i check the L language and i do not think that it is context free then i also saw that L2 is L1 reversed do i have to check if L1, L2 are deterministic ? please help because i am in a dead end

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >