> On Jul 25, 2018, at 9:48 PM, Gilles wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:08:57 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
>>> On Jul 24, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Rob Tompkins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Jul 24, 2018, at 7:04 PM, Gilles wrote:
Hi Rob.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 18:33:40 -0400, Rob
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:08:57 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
On Jul 24, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Rob Tompkins
wrote:
On Jul 24, 2018, at 7:04 PM, Gilles
wrote:
Hi Rob.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 18:33:40 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
I know that the tests will be necessarily non-deterministic, but
we
can
> On Jul 24, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Rob Tompkins wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jul 24, 2018, at 7:04 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rob.
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 18:33:40 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
>>> I know that the tests will be necessarily non-deterministic, but we
>>> can at least get closer to having
> On Jul 24, 2018, at 7:04 PM, Gilles wrote:
>
> Hi Rob.
>
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 18:33:40 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
>> I know that the tests will be necessarily non-deterministic, but we
>> can at least get closer to having determinism by running the same test
>> 1000 times and expecting
Hi Rob.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 18:33:40 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
I know that the tests will be necessarily non-deterministic, but we
can at least get closer to having determinism by running the same
test
1000 times and expecting some reasonable number of passes right?
Could
we use the
I know that the tests will be necessarily non-deterministic, but we can at
least get closer to having determinism by running the same test 1000 times and
expecting some reasonable number of passes right? Could we use the underlying
distribution that we are testing to sort out this value?
-Rob
