Sentences with phrase «different wrong results»
Infamous because so many calculations got so many different wrong results by so many different ways, sometimes when using the same software; the same models, methods and software.
https://models-methods-software.com/ Not exact matches
We continue to ask the wrong question and wonder why we expect different results.
If you redo an experiment over and over and over again and you get a different result then there was something wrong with the experiment.
This was never going to last, since heresy and relativism had, of course, never disappeared from the «papal agenda» and neither — perhaps more to the point — had his (and his predecessor's) analysis that disunity in the modern church was the result of a clash between two different interpretations of the Council itself, one right, the other wrong: as Benedict once more explained it, as his first Christmas as Pope approached in December 2005, «On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call «a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture» [i.e., the line peddled by The Tabletfor thirty years]; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology.
After its been done a lot more and by different people if the results hold up it would be a much better source of evidence if they don't well then the guiy was wrong.
It could be I've done something wrong, so I'll try it again and if I get a different result, I'll post a new review.
Wenger is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results (wait a minute is that not the definition of insanity) we are moving on the league table but its the wrong way, only Wenger, the board, the owner and some fans think that we are going through some sort of a glitch.
What is confusing is you used word indisputable which is for you and I, Wenger has 1 year left with a dream that he can still make a comeback in spite of all the different negative results staring Arsenal in the face.His game plan is a result of his senior moments and I really would like Wenger not to go away on a low vibe for what he did for club.I do believe he loves ARSENAL and can not cope with the game plan of the other managers to a point where he is putting his faith in the wrong players of which the results speaks for itself.
Again I'll be happy to be wrong but doing the same thing and expecting different results is well, Wenger.
if Arsene's critics say he doesn't change anything and expect a different result, they are wrong as Arsene does the same thing over and over again (i.e. playing with three at back) in order to get the same result (i.e. 11 victories out of 12 before the Marriner inflicted defeat at Stoke).
• Starting with different age groups: 18 - 24 months, 24 - 36 months, 36 + months • Maintaining the learning process through to completion • Troubleshooting: what common things go wrong, and how to address them • Wrapping up the process to result in full potty independence.
These results not only change our fundamental understanding of what exactly goes wrong in the muscles of Duchenne muscular dystrophy patients, but they argue for a very different approach to therapeutic development for this devastating disease.»
It could be from a number of different reasons — you could be eating too much food or too little or the wrong types of food for your body type, you need to be doing a combination of both cardio and strength training to get good results, you need to be consistent, plus other things like getting enough rest, sleep, reducing your stress and ensuring your hormones are working properly.
Well I did... and I can tell you the result doesn't look that good She showed us different examples of what washing your clothes the wrong way (like too hot or the wrong detergent) really can do to the color of your clothes.
It was crazy; the process to get in was ridiculous, the fact that three different start times for the signing were published is wrong on so many levels, the «check - out» system was a complete nightmare resulting in many people abandoning their «personalized» books.
Too many people keep doing the same wrong things and expect different results — when it comes to credit it won't work.
It's never wrong to experiment and try out different things to see which yields better results for you.
They are several things that M$ has done different from the pro and to assume that they will have the same result without at least hearing from M$ and developers feels wrong to me.
I take it that you're admitting Montford was wrong about getting a «completely different result» if you leave out just NOAMER PC1 and Stahle — that you have to leave out Gaspe too.
Obtaining a significantly different result compared to not using PCA is * wrong * regardless of what selection rules if any are used.
Frightening thought — if and only if the AGW centric prediction of future climate is either not completely correct, or out right wrong, consider extreme scenarios which would result in a drastically (and painfully) different outcome than the prophecied sea level rise / climatic tropical expansion / northerly movement of species model.
If you get a substantially different result from the professionals, I'm sure there will be plenty of volunteers to go over your work product and figure out where you went wrong.
You can show they are wrong by getting a different result.
«Unfair» might be taking a statement I made in that post (on May 11 2012 — note the date), pointing out that Briffa et al's results would be different from what McIntyre had put up (on May 6 2012)(as the figure below demonstrates), and then using a calculation made on May 15 2012 to claim I was wrong.
: — LRB - It would seem that if 15 models all give different results, and we consider differences of 0.02 C to be significant, then at lesst 14 of them have to be wrong.
presented in this manuscript is wrong is that the different GCMs with well - known different cloudiness biases (IPCC) produce quite similar results, albeit a spread in the
If those methods give a widely different result, then it suggests that the underpinnings of the «approved» methods are wrong, no matter how authoritatively one may argue about how Bayesian methods should work.
In a sense, in AR5, the IPCC just throws up its hands and says «yes ok, the models don't align with the data, but the data might be wrong, and rather than fix those models, we'll quietly dump that test and the awkward results and pick a different set of inconclusive tests instead.
Of course, whether or not the authors of a paper agree with presenting its results on a different, inconsistent basis in no way shows that doing so was valid, nor that there was anything wrong with the basis on which they were originally presented.
Remember they just cut chunks out of different runs to assemble their «best» results, so since their results are not from 4 complete runs, there's something else horribly wrong with them.
As long as Lindzen can not explain his choices and why his results are so much different from those of several others, Lindzen's article will go on the large trashheap of scientific articles that are disregarded because they are very likely wrong.
Completely wrong, the sensors are different, also the pixel sizes are greater in Google Pixel which helps it to reduce noise and produce better low light results... Please do some research before blindly bashing companies, typical mentality...
There is something wrong with a profession where an Agent can list and a sell a large number of homes in a given year, where the SELLER NETS 2 to 3 % higher cash in pocket using my services versus a competitor and still I am can't publish it because it infers I do a better job than my competitor not just a DIFFERENT result.