[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.programming

This USL methodology is amazing !

Ramine

4/18/2016 8:34:00 PM

Hello,

This USL methodology is amazing !

Look at this link about the USL methodology about
mixed workload on Ecommerce websites from Dr. Gunther the author
of USL methodology:

http://perfdynamics.blogspot.ca/2009/04/assessing-usl-scalability-with-...

Now that you have understood my previous more precise proof about
USL methodology..

I will explain to you why the content of the above link from Dr. Gunther
works:

On Ecommerce websites, from my previous proof the USL methodology will
capture correctly the tendency of the graph of the nonlinear regression
of the database server, but for the Internet network,
because we have two things when modeling of Ecommerce websites
, we have the computer server of the database system and we have
the internet network, so for the internet network, the USL methodology
will capture correctly the tendency of the graph of the nonlinear
regression of the Internet network, because the internet network have
a more linear shape of the graph of the scalability with more and more
internet users using it..

This is why USL methodology can model the Ecommerce websites too
with mixed workloads too, so USL methodology is an amazing
great tool that can predict scalability !

Please try my USL programs because they are working great and
they predict scalability !

I have included the 32 bit and 64 bit windows executables of my
programs inside the zip file to easy the job for you.

You can download my USL programs version 3.0 with the source code from:

https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/universal-scalability-law-for-delphi-and-...


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
3 Answers

Slackjaw

2/13/2013 2:25:00 PM

0

On Feb 12, 8:19 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 3:59 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 3:55 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 12, 3:37 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 12, 3:03 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 12, 2:55 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2:50 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2:39 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2:24 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2:07 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 1:32 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 11:15 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 11:13 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 10:49 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 10:33 am, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 10:16 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 10:01 am, Salty Stan <wsjames....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ss
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Very.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's the equation as is.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember: the question is what is x?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I posted my answers, hoe could you mis them?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here they are again, x +
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (-146/30) + sqrt (13964/900) * i
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (-146/30) - sqrt (13964/900) * i
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, is that right?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm, and I was sure I was correct.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, so what are the right answers?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are no right answers.  There's just one right answer.  Think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > linear equation and stop being so complicated.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear, don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you, wy??? So you know what the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say about that?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But again, if I'm wrong, then I give up. Please post the correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > answer here:_____________________
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's linear.  Answer is x=3.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.sosmath.com/algebra/solve/solve1/s1...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem that you presented in this thread is not the same as in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the link that you provided.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you were such an algebra wiz, you wouldn't have written it with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > such vagueness as over this and that;
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You would have written it as,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (6x-7)/4 +(3x-5)/7 = (5x+78)/28
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > NOW, getting away from your diversion, why is California dumping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > algebra rather than figuring out how to teach it?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Another right wingnut who refuses to read the original post with the
> > > > > > > > > > > > correct equation.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Allow to quote you directly from one of your own posts.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > (Begin quote)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And the 5 over the 7 is a separate set of numbers, not part of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > first set of numbers, so break up the line between the two.
> > > > > > > > > > > >   6x - 7        5        5x + 78
> > > > > > > > > > > > ------------- -  -----  =  --------------
> > > > > > > > > > > >   4 + 3x      7            28
> > > > > > > > > > > > There, is that right?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Yep.  Now don't go cheating and start using online calculators like I
> > > > > > > > > > > know you're going to do.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > (End quote)
>
> > > > > > > > > > Right, after you screwed up on the equation by putting the 3x where it
> > > > > > > > > > shouldn't have been and which wasn't in my original equation that you
> > > > > > > > > > responded to.  But yeah, I know you were optically challenged by all
> > > > > > > > > > the "over" words I had in it.
>
> > > > > > > > > Excuse me, but YOU were the one who stated where the 3x should be:
> > > > > > > > > Here is YOUR post:
>
> > > > > > > > >   wy
> > > > > > > > > View profile
> > > > > > > > >  More options Feb 11, 5:06 pm
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 4:18 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > > > > > > 6x - 7   - 5  = 5x + 78
> > > > > > > > > 4 + 3x    7         28
>
> > > > > > > > Jesus F. Christ, you are one seroiusly optically-challenged right
> > > > > > > > wingnut, aren't you?  This is the original:
>
> > > > > > > > 6x - 7 over 4 + 3x - 5 over 7 = 5x + 78 over 28
>
> > > > > > > > Now where in that original would it result in 3x being with 4?  What
> > > > > > > > separates each group of numbers are the plus sign, the minus sign and
> > > > > > > > the equation sign.  And so where is the 3x?  It's *after* the + sign,
> > > > > > > > meaning obviously that it's connected with the 5 over 7, or:
>
> > > > > > > >     3x-5
> > > > > > > > +  ------  -
> > > > > > > >       7
>
> > > > > > > > Not:
>
> > > > > > > > 6x - 7
> > > > > > > > --------  +
> > > > > > > > 4 x 3
>
> > > > > > > > Boy, you're optically challenged and algebraically stupid.
>
> > > > > > > > > Just imagine a line between each set of upper and lower figures.  It
> > > > > > > > > should be so obvious that "over" substitutes for the missing lines.
>
> > > > > > > > > IF you are going to put the Parentheses  in arbitrary places like you
> > > > > > > > > want to do, rather than following the RULES, Salty's equation is a
> > > > > > > > > valid statement, that YOU agreed to:
>
> > > > > > > > > 6x - 7 over 4 + 3x - 5 over 7
>
> > > > > > > > >  with arbitrary parentheses can become
>
> > > > > > > > > (6x - 7) over (4 + 3x) - 5 over 7
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > (6x - 7)/(4 + 3x) - 5/7
>
> > > > > > > > > THAT is why there are RULES in algebra.  It would seem that you don't
> > > > > > > > > know the rules.
>
> > > > > > > Here are the Algebraic Precedence Rules?
>
> > > > > > > 1. Parentheses
>
> > > > > > > 2. Exponents
>
> > > > > > > 3. Multiplication and division
>
> > > > > > > 4. Addition and subtraction
>
> > > > > > > You have no Parentheses in your statement so the RULES #2 thru #4
> > > > > > > apply
> > > > > > > Since division (your use of the word "over") has greater precedence
> > > > > > > than addition and subtraction
>
> > > > > > >  6x - 7 over 4 + 3x - 5 over 7
> > > > > > > becomes
>
> > > > > > > 6x - 7/4 + 3x - 5/7
>
> > > > > > > YOU want to break the RULES and put the parentheses around the 6x -7
> > > > > > > and the 3x - 5
>
> > > > > > > to get to:
>
> > > > > > > (6x-7)/4 + (3x-5)/7
>
> > > > > > > The equation that YOU presented is NOT the equation in the link that
> > > > > > > you provided
>
> > > > > > In other words, you can't answer the question:
>
> > > > > > 6x - 7 over 4 + 3x - 5 over 7 = 5x + 78 over 28
>
> > > > > > Now where in that original would it result in 3x being with 4?
>
> > > > > > Yeah, I thought so.
>
> > > > > > I think you're even too stupid for yourself today.  Go away and come
> > > > > > back tomorrow when you've hit the reset button and become less stupid.
>
> > > > > You said "And so where is the 3x?  It's *after* the + sign,  meaning
> > > > > obviously that it's connected with the 5
>
> > > > > WELL, In addition to the 3x coming after the plus sign, It ALSO comes
> > > > > before the minus sign.   According to the RULES the plus and the minus
> > > > > sign have EQUAL weight, so why would it have any more connection to
> > > > > the 5 than to the 4???
>
> > > > And how is the equation separated further?  Note the CAPITAL X:
>
> > > > 6X - 7 over 4 + 3X - 5 over 7 = 5X + 78 over 28
>
> > > > The X factor distinguishes the beginning of each new set of numbers.
>
> > > Can you provide a math text that explains that concept?
>
> > > You can't because what you just stated is a bogus concept.
>
> > > For example, lets rearrange the 5X + 78 over 28  to be  78 + 5x over
> > > 28.
>
> > > Does that mean that the 5X is the "start of a New set of numbers and
> > > the "over" does not apply to the 78?
>
> > > What determines a "set of numbers", as you put it, is a pair of
> > > parentheses.  You didn't put ANY parentheses and left the position of
> > > them up to the reader.
>
> > > The fact that the parentheses are *supposed* to be there is why Stan
> > > had to ask for multiple clarifications of what you had implied.
>
> > > You had to violate the world wide rules to put the parentheses where
> > > they needed to go.
>
> > This is turning out to be a bad day for poor ol' "wy".
>
> It's all your fault, you deliberately screwed up on the equation.

Allow me to quote directly from your own posts.

(Begin quote)

6x - 7 - 5 = 5x + 78
4 + 3x 7 28

Just imagine a line between each set of upper and lower figures. It
should be so obvious that "over" substitutes for the missing lines.

....

> > And the 5 over the 7 is a separate set of numbers, not part of the
> > first set of numbers, so break up the line between the two.

> 6x - 7 5 5x + 78
> ------------- - ----- = --------------
> 4 + 3x 7 28
> There, is that right?

Yep. Now don't go cheating and start using online calculators like I
know you're going to do.

(End quote)

Ramon F Herrera

2/13/2013 11:34:00 PM

0

On Feb 13, 5:14 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

> Technically, all that is pre-algebra.
>

No, it is not. That is Algebra. No such thing as pre-algebra. A woman
cannot be semi-pregnant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

-Ramon The Hispo

kenobi

4/18/2016 5:42:00 PM

0

W dniu poniedzialek, 18 kwietnia 2016 19:32:07 UTC+2 uzytkownik Ramine napisal:
> Hello,
>
> This USL methodology is amazing !
>
> Look at this link about the USL methodology about
> mixed workload on Ecommerce websites from Dr. Gunther the author
> of USL methodology:
>
> http://perfdynamics.blogspot.ca/2009/04/assessing-usl-scalability-with-...
>
> Now that you have understood my previous more precise proof about
> USL methodology..
>
> I will explain to you why the content of the above link from Dr. Gunther
> works:
>
> On Ecommerce websites, from my previous proof the USL methodology will
> capture correctly the tendency of the graph of the nonlinear regression
> of the database server, but for the Internet network,
> because we have two things when modeling of Ecommerce websites
> , we have the computer server of the database system and we have
> the internet network, so for the internet network, the USL methodology
> will capture correctly the tendency of the graph of the nonlinear
> regression of the Internet network, because the internet network have
> a more linear shape of the graph of the scalability with more and more
> internet users using it..
>
> This is why USL methodology can model the Ecommerce websites too
> with mixed workloads too, so USL methodology is an amazing
> great tool that can predict scalability !
>
> Please try my USL programs because they are working great and
> they predict scalability !
>
> I have included the 32 bit and 64 bit windows executables of my
> programs inside the zip file to easy the job for you.
>
> You can download my USL programs version 3.0 with the source code from:
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/universal-scalability-law-for-delphi-and-...
>
>
> Thank you,
> Amine Moulay Ramdane.

the technology to kick you in your donkey idiot-spamer brick ass would be amazing.. instead you go into abusing debts of well know idiot and abuser.. isnt it sad ?