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


 

Forums >

comp.programming

Here is a more precise affirmation about USL methodology...

Ramine

4/21/2016 10:13:00 PM

Hello..

Here is a more precise affirmation about USL methodology...

USL methodology is a like playing a probability game..

From my previous proof i can say that USL methodology that uses
nonlinear regression is a like playing probability game...

Because in the USL methodology the much much greater part of the chance
probabilistically will hit and gives us the possibility of forecating up
to 10X the maximum number of cores and threads of the performance data
measurements is a better approximation.

And because a much much smaller part of the chance probabilistically
will hit and gives us the possibility of forecating up to 6X the maximum
number of cores and threads of the performance data measurements is a
better approximation.

And forecasting up to 10X the maximum number of cores and threads
of the performance data measurements is the limit.

So as you have noticed the USL methodology is still useful
and it works and it is interesting and an important tool to use.

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.
8 Answers

darnell

2/13/2013 5:16:00 PM

0

On 2/12/2013 12:45 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> x=3, now go pester someone else with your prattling, cupcakes..
?Me? I already understand how little I actually know..? ---

Kurt Lochner Harrington (Weasel Remember)Sunday, December 03, 2006 6:57 PM

darnell

2/13/2013 5:17:00 PM

0

On 2/12/2013 1:59 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Teapublicans really suck at simple arithmetic!..
?Me? I already understand how little I actually know..? ---

Kurt Lochner Harrington (Weasel Remember)Sunday, December 03, 2006 6:57 PM

darnell

2/13/2013 5:17:00 PM

0

On 2/12/2013 2:01 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Nah, he can't even solve his own simple algebra problems..
>
> --
?Me? I already understand how little I actually know..? ---

Kurt Lochner Harrington (Weasel Remember)Sunday, December 03, 2006 6:57 PM

darnell

2/13/2013 5:17:00 PM

0

On 2/12/2013 2:07 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Nope, that would again be yourself..
>
> --
?Me? I already understand how little I actually know..? ---

Kurt Lochner Harrington (Weasel Remember)Sunday, December 03, 2006 6:57 PM

darnell

2/13/2013 5:17:00 PM

0

On 2/12/2013 2:36 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Glad I could help you again with that, Faulty Shame..
>
> --
?Me? I already understand how little I actually know..? ---

Kurt Lochner Harrington (Weasel Remember)Sunday, December 03, 2006 6:57 PM

darnell

2/13/2013 5:17:00 PM

0

On 2/12/2013 3:05 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Nope, I transposed my signs, thus x = (3,-2).. Mea culpa..
?Me? I already understand how little I actually know..? ---

Kurt Lochner Harrington (Weasel Remember)Sunday, December 03, 2006 6:57 PM

darnell

2/13/2013 5:19:00 PM

0

On 2/12/2013 4:01 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Oh, and could you please translate this?
?Me? I already understand how little I actually know..? ---

Kurt Lochner Harrington (Weasel Remember)Sunday, December 03, 2006 6:57 PM

Slackjaw

2/13/2013 5:53:00 PM

0

On Feb 13, 12:18 pm, darnell <w...@er.ggw> wrote:
> On 2/12/2013 4:01 PM, Man of Mind wrote:> Oh, and could you please translate this?
>
> Me?  I already understand how little I actually know.. ---
>
> Kurt Lochner Harrington (Weasel Remember)Sunday, December 03, 2006 6:57 PM

In Kurt's defense, he has proven himself to be smarter than "wy".