|
Re: Reasonable limits |
Yes, I know. The numbers you proposed would have made it worse. Currently the program looks for anything within +- 3 windows in time, up to 10 times the radius in space and any magnitude at all. The search radius is increased in 10% increments for probability calculations since one does not predict exact values for things. But I get too many hits to compute in a reasonable time (in some cases) so I need a weed-out routine. I can't do it without a major rewrite because right now it remembers everything and does probability last and I run out of memory at about 400 quakes. Always something.... Roger Follow Ups: ● Re: Reasonable limits - 2cents 17:43:15 - 4/5/2002 (14666) (1) ● Re: Reasonable limits - Roger Hunter 17:57:37 - 4/5/2002 (14668) (0) ● Re: Reasonable limits - michael 17:12:44 - 4/4/2002 (14608) (1) ● Re: Reasonable limits - Roger Hunter 18:10:51 - 4/4/2002 (14613) (1) ● Re: Reasonable limits - Cathryn 19:18:42 - 4/4/2002 (14619) (1) ● Re: Reasonable limits - Roger Hunter 05:49:53 - 4/5/2002 (14634) (1) ● Re: Reasonable limits - Mary C. 09:00:44 - 4/5/2002 (14638) (1) ● Re: Reasonable limits - Roger Hunter 10:29:32 - 4/5/2002 (14641) (1) ● Re: Reasonable limits - Cathryn 20:55:51 - 4/5/2002 (14672) (1) ● Re: Reasonable limits - Roger Hunter 04:41:04 - 4/6/2002 (14679) (0) |
|