## cpu – Confusion in the calculation of speed for the pipeline architecture

Approach I is to calculate cycles by instruction change, regardless of the frequency increase (presumably the non-multipipe design has some risks that are not present in pipeline design, multiplexed to use multiple cycles for some instructions).

Approach II calculates the frequency increase (decrease in cycle time) from pipeline processing (ignoring overheads).

The real increase in performance, assuming a miraculous reduction in cycle times of 1.4 to 1 and pipeline steps as stupidly unbalanced (and no overhead), would be the product of both of these factors. .

If the cycle time of the uncoupled design equals the total processing time of an instruction for pipeline design, one could expect that the IPC would be the same in the circumstances ideal (no pipeline risk). In one way or another, in this example, the non-multipiled design averages more time processing an instruction than pipeline design, which indicates that it is simply accidental that times are equal; Pipeline design stages do not correspond to non-pipelined design cycle time parts.

The pipeline does not reduce the amount of work and if each pipeline stage corresponds to an equal amount of work in the unmatched design (ie, the work is not done faster), the CPI would be equal, implying that the pipeline design is not entirely pipeline. .

(Another alternative is to compare two separate ISAs, so the more pipeline friendly ISA used by the pipelined design uses 1.4 times more instructions to avoid instructions that would require more than 10 ninns to be fully processed. )

## derivatives – Confusion in the understanding of continuous function

Okay so I started studying derivatives and there is this idea of ​​continuity. The book says "a real evaluated function is considered continuous at a point if the graph of a function has no break at the point of consideration, which is the case if the values ​​of the function at the neighboring points are sufficiently close to the value of the function at the given point "

So, what I do not understand is that the reason why the values ​​of the function at the neighboring points must be sufficiently close to the value of the function at the given point, is not enough if they are defined, why should they be close enough the value of the function at the given point?

## Confusion on the generalization of an ODE for mixtures

Generalize the given model in the equation:

$$frac {{dA}} {{dt}} = 6 – frac {A} {{100}} % MathType! MTEF! 2! 1! + – % feaagKart1ev2aaatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbuLwBLn % hiov2DGi1BTfMBaeXatLxBI9gBaerbd9wDYLwzYbItLDharqqtubsr % 4rNCHbGeaGqiVu0Je9sqqrpepC0xbbL8F4rqqrFfpeea0xe9Lq-Jc9 % vqaqpepm0xbba9pwe9Q8fs0-yqaqpepae9pg0FirpepeKkFr0xfr-x % fr-xb9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaamaabaabaaGcbaWaaSaaaeaaca % WGKbGaamyqaaqaaiaadsgacaWG0baaaiabg2da9iaaiAdacqGHsisl % daWcaaqaaiaadgeaaeaacaaIXaGaaGimaiaaicdaaaaaaaa! 3F4F!$$ or

$$frac {{dA}} {{dt}} + frac {1} {{100}} A = 6 % MathType! MTEF! 2! 1! + – % feaagKart1ev2aaatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbuLwBLn % hiov2DGi1BTfMBaeXatLxBI9gBaerbd9wDYLwzYbItLDharqqtubsr % 4rNCHbGeaGqiVu0Je9sqqrpepC0xbbL8F4rqqrFfpeea0xe9Lq-Jc9 % vqaqpepm0xbba9pwe9Q8fs0-yqaqpepae9pg0FirpepeKkFr0xfr-x % fr-xb9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaamaabaabaaGcbaWaaSaaaeaaca % WGKbGaamyqaaqaaiaadsgacaWG0baaaiabgUcaRmaalaaabaGaaGym % aaqaaiaaigdacaaIWaGaaGimaaaacaWGbbGaeyypa0JaaGOnaaaa! 3FFF!$$

The equation also goes on to explain that:

If rin and confuse the general flow of entry and exit brine solutions *, then
there are three possibilities: rin = rout, rin> rout and rin
< rout. In the analysis leading to (8) we have assumed that rin=rout. In the latter two cases the number of gallons of brine in the tank is either increasing (rin > rout) or decreasing (rin
<der) to
the net rate rin-rout.

assuming that the large reservoir initially contains N0
number of gallons of brine, Rin and Rout are the entrance and
brine outlet rate, respectively (measured in gallons
per minute), cin is the concentration of salt in
the influx, c (t) the concentration of salt in the reservoir
as well as in the outgoing flow at time t (measured in pounds)
of salt per gallon), and A (t) is the amount of salt in the
tank at time t.

or $$c (t) = frac {{A (t)}} {{300}} % MathType! MTEF! 2! 1! + – % feaagKart1ev2aaatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbuLwBLn % hiov2DGi1BTfMBaeXatLxBI9gBaerbd9wDYLwzYbItLDharqqtubsr % 4rNCHbGeaGqiVu0Je9sqqrpepC0xbbL8F4rqqrFfpeea0xe9Lq-Jc9 % vqaqpepm0xbba9pwe9Q8fs0-yqaqpepae9pg0FirpepeKkFr0xfr-x % fr-xb9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaamaabaabaaGcbaGaam4yaiaacI % cacaWG0bGaaiykaiabg2da9maalaaabaGaamyqaiaacIcacaWG0bGa % aiykaaqaaiaaiodacaaIWaGaaGimaaaaaaaa! 3F8F!$$ (lb per gallon)

First, in an attempt to generalize, I concluded

(1) $$Rin = (cin) (c (t)) % MathType! MTEF! 2! 1! + – % feaagKart1ev2aaatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbuLwBLn % hiov2DGi1BTfMBaeXatLxBI9gBaerbd9wDYLwzYbItLDharqqtubsr % 4rNCHbGeaGqiVu0Je9sqqrpepC0xbbL8F4rqqrFfpeea0xe9Lq-Jc9 % vqaqpepm0xbba9pwe9Q8fs0-yqaqpepae9pg0FirpepeKkFr0xfr-x % fr-xb9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaamaabaabaaGcbaGaamOuaiaadM % gacaWGUbGaeyypa0JaaiikaiaacogacaWGPpbGaamOBaiaacMcacaGG % OaGaai4yaiaacIcacaWG0bGaaiykaiaacMcaaaa! 4267!$$

And

(2)

$$Rout = frac {{A (t)}} {{c (t)}} % MathType! MTEF! 2! 1! + – % feaagKart1ev2aaatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbuLwBLn % hiov2DGi1BTfMBaeXatLxBI9gBaerbd9wDYLwzYbItLDharqqtubsr % 4rNCHbGeaGqiVu0Je9sqqrpepC0xbbL8F4rqqrFfpeea0xe9Lq-Jc9 % vqaqpepm0xbba9pwe9Q8fs0-yqaqpepae9pg0FirpepeKkFr0xfr-x % fr-xb9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaamaabaabaaGcbaGaamOuaiaad + % gacaWG1bGaamiDaiabg2da9maalaaabaGaamyqaiaacIcacaWG0bGa % aiykaaqaaiaadogacaGGOaGaamiDaiaacMcaaaaaaa! 411C!$$

and so

because

$$frac {{dA}} {{dt}} = Rin – Rout % MathType! MTEF! 2! 1! + – % feaagKart1ev2aaatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbuLwBLn % hiov2DGi1BTfMBaeXatLxBI9gBaerbd9wDYLwzYbItLDharqqtubsr % 4rNCHbGeaGqiVu0Je9sqqrpepC0xbbL8F4rqqrFfpeea0xe9Lq-Jc9 % vqaqpepm0xbba9pwe9Q8fs0-yqaqpepae9pg0FirpepeKkFr0xfr-x % fr-xb9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaamaabaabaaGcbaWaaSaaaeaaca % WGKbGaamyqaaqaaiaadsgacaWG0baaaiabg2da9iaadkfacaWGPbGa % amOBaiabgkHiTiaadkfacaWGVbGaamyDaiaadshaaaa! 4200!$$

is the general formula that I've used in every problem (where Rin = salt input rate, Rout = salt output rate) I thought that plugging this general data in case of a problem would make it a problem. but it turns out that the solution of the book is very different

(See picture)

I have trouble understanding how they brought their solution closer to what they gave us in the question and the equation. Any help to help me cross again would be a major help. Thanks in advance!

## without context – Confusion with CNF's first condition

I had a very short question about CFG (especially the CNF attributes). I've gone through a few examples and I've found a few that baffle me. Here is an example:

S → XA | BB

B → b | SB

X → b

A → a

It is stated that this is well in CNF, but my confusion lies in the fact that, in most of the rules, it is stated that if the starting state S exists in some RHS (in this case B → b | SB), we need to create a rule that: states S →. As this does not exist in this example, why is it considered part of the CNF? I also understand the rules of the CNF, I also see that this example technically satisfies all these rules, so I wonder if that's the reason?

Rules:

A → a

A → BC.

Thanks for the help in advance!

Here is the link to the question for reference (it concerns CFG TO GNF)
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/converting-context-free-grammar-greibach-normal-form/

## Transactions – Confusion of Chicken and Egg on Bitcoin Generation

A valid Bitcoin block must include at least one transaction, that is, the coinbase transaction that pays the block reward. Most early Bitcoin blocks did not include transactions sending bitcoins from one party to another, but included only the coin transaction that paid for the newly minted bitcoins.

In fact, the first transaction in which a coin exchange took place was in block 170, when Satoshi sent 10 BTCs to Hal Finney

## Confusion of vector calculation (fluids)

I have a two-dimensional flow so $$textbf {u} = (u (x, y, t), v (x, y, t), 0)$$ and so the swirl of the flow $$pmb { omega} = (0, 0, w (x, y, t))$$

I am interested in the following two terms:

1. $$( textbf {u} cdot nabla) pmb { omega}$$

2. $$( pmb { omega} cdot nabla) textbf {u}$$

Now, apparently, the first one is not usually $$0$$but the second is $$0$$.

I struggle to see why. I'm also just struggling to find meaning in this expression. I do not understand what operation to do first, why it's written in parentheses like that – I mean, is the first, for example, equivalent to $$textbf {u} cdot nabla pmb { omega}$$?

And above all, how do you calculate these things and do you show that the second is $$0$$?

Image Result for What Link Cloaking?

The connection envelope is the way to hide the subsidiary login URL, given by a member program, to confuse your sub-division ID and shorten the connection. This secures your associated payments by making the rejection ID less obvious and making the connection more visible to customers.

.

## vampire the masquerade 5th – VTM V5 Confusion about remote combat

I use basic fights.

I have player A and a thug. Both have a dice pool of 7. They are in ranged combat. They both roll 7 dice, regardless of the winner and the margin is the damage. I understand this part.

I thought the rules explained this role as a summary of the two fighters who faced, attacked and dodged.

So, that's where I get lost. Same scenario. Player A and thug. Both have dice groups of 7 and are shooting again.

This time, player A has no cover. In the book, it is stated that the covers give a -2 to the players defense reserve. Here is where I am confused. They shoot at each other as before and they treat the fight as a distance fight. Before, they had just rolled their dice of 7 and called them one day. But now, since player A does not have a cover, player A must also roll a separate defense roll or if his attack group of 7 is assumed to be – 2 dice. No option makes sense.

## Network – Confusion on OCSP support from a website? Openssl vs Broweser Information? Which one to believe?

I'm looking at a website in Google Chrome. According to an article I've read online in order to check if a website supports OCSF, you can view Certificates> Details> Extensions, then see where it looks like. http: // ocsp .blla.blla.blla …

So I look at the website that interests me to know if it supports OCSP, I look at the certificate extensions and I see the link and the sender for OCSP.

But when I test OCSP with OpenSSL, with the following line:

openssl s_client -connect thewebIwantToLookat.com:443 -tls1 -tlsextdebug -status

He returns:

OCSP response: no response sent

Which means that there is no OCSP support.

So now, who should I believe, it should be deterministic, right?

## waiting for users – client migration … rather like a customer confusion

I've recently participated in a client migration project, forcing clients to modify their web / application / retail experience. The company I work for has acquired another company in the same sector.

Wherever I've seen this before, the explanation provided to the customer is that the company's x & # 39; merged with the company & # 39; y & # 39; … creating the company & # 39; z & # 39 ;.

My company has redone the skin of the acquired company with the same brand and the same color palette. The UX / UI are slightly different. We currently have two companies on the App Store.

My company now explains to the customer. Hey, the company "x" acquired the company "y" and became the company "x.1". We now need you to move from "x.1" society to "x" society.

I am confused when writing this, the customer must be lost! the fear of users will be related to the migration of money into portfolios, accounts, passwords, transaction history, via physical and digital channels, etc.

Does anyone know that this has already been done? or any UX client migration advice / case studies or words of wisdom.