12-12-2007 06:52 AM
Gabi,
Yeah, I hate those stangers who sit in your chain, in your office. Worse is that they even look like you. But to top it off, they even drink YOUR COFFEE!!!! That's just bad!!
Looking at the code, it reminds me of my coding from days gone by, when I was young, carefree, and didn't visit this forum as often. Maybe a couple of weeks ago?? 😄 LOL!! 😄
12-12-2007 07:14 AM
JoeLabView wrote:Looking at the code, it reminds me of my coding from days gone by, when I was young, carefree, and didn't visit this forum as often. Maybe a couple of weeks ago?? 😄 LOL!! 😄
12-12-2007 10:33 AM
Oh, but its so monochrome orange, with just a touch a blue at the bottom. 😄
You must admit that the use of locals in this case has the advantage of self-documentation (and they are all beautifully named! ;))
It seems at one time in the past, the code was used with simulated data. How else would do explain that gaussian noise that's not used at all.
How many times does one need to calculate h/2pi? 😄
12-12-2007 01:38 PM
Well, with the state of physics being what it is today, one can't even count on constants being constant anymore, so I guess you could say he was being proactive.
@altenbach wrote:
How many times does one need to calculate h/2pi? 😄
12-12-2007 01:43 PM
By modern physics we have to assume that a "constant" is constant because it is more likely to be the value we assigned to it than any other value. Kinda like I'm more likely to be surfing the web than working.
smercurio_fc wrote:Well, with the state of physics being what it is today, one can't even count on constants being constant anymore, ...
12-12-2007 01:43 PM
it is back from the times i had all my variables in the first sequence, and i was addressing them only trough locals. this prog has only 5 sequences. and yes, they all look like this one.
You must admit that the use of locals in this case has the advantage of self-documentation (and they are all beautifully named! ;))
This is a MC simulation. the outer loop is nb of steps, inner loop is number of samples. i assume the unused gaussian noise was a first approx for a random value of one of the degrees of freedom, and was replaced with a more elaborate random number with thermal distribution weight. this is the small subvi named '1'.
It seems at one time in the past, the code was used with simulated data. How else would do explain that gaussian noise that's not used at all.
12-12-2007 08:10 PM
12-19-2007 02:12 AM - edited 12-19-2007 02:15 AM
01-09-2008 04:09 PM
01-10-2008 04:34 PM