der Mouse wrote:
I see no reason to insist on misreading the formula in order
to get something other than what the author claimed, when
reading it as written does get what was claimed.
It wasn't absolutely clear - the comment talked about "step x"
instead of "step n+1" - and Peter wanted to explain the idea
of a "decaying mean", and why it's almost the same as William's
"weighted mean".
My M99(n) formula was an example for this, each new S(n+1) is
represented in M99(n+1) by 1%, and 99% of it are for all older
S(n). Works as is only for step n > 99 of course. Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg