Probabilistic results Sample Clauses

Probabilistic results. We investigate Sidon subsets of sparse, random sets of integers, that is, we replace the ‘environment’ [n] by a sparse, random subset R of [n], and ask how large a subset S ⊂ R can be, if we require that S should be a Sidon set. m n Let us now state a weak, but less technical version of our main probabilistic results. Let F (R) = max |S|, where the maximum is taken over all Sidon subsets S ⊂ R. Let [n]m be a random subset of [n] of cardinality m = m(n), with all the subsets of [n] equiprobable. We are interested in the random variable F ([n]m). The usual deletion method gives that, almost surely, that is, with probability tending to 1 as n → ∞, we have F ([n]m) = (1−o(1))m if m = m(n) n1/3. On the other hand, the results of Xxxxxxx [40] and Xxxxxx and Gowers [12] imply that, if m = m(n) n1/3, then, almost surely, we have
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Probabilistic results. We investigate B3-sets contained in a sparse, random set of [n], that is, we replace the ‘environment’ [n] by a sparse, random subset [n]m of [n], where [n]m denotes a random subset of [n] of cardinality m = m(n), with all the subsets of [n] with size m having the same probability. Then we ask how large a subset S ⊂ [n]m can be, if we require that S should be a B3-set. The following definition will provide a notation suitable for this problem.

Related to Probabilistic results

  • Expected Results VA’s agreement with DoD to provide educational assistance is a statutory requirement of Chapter 1606, Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 1607, Title 10, U.S.C., Chapter 30, Title 38, U.S.C. and Chapter 33, Title 38, U.S.C (Post-9/11 GI Xxxx). These laws require VA to make payments to eligible veterans, service members, guard, reservist, and family members under the transfer of entitlement provisions. The responsibility of determining basic eligibility for Chapter 1606 is placed on the DoD. The responsibility of determining basic eligibility for Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 is placed on VA, while the responsibility of providing initial eligibility data for Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 is placed on DoD. Thus, the two agencies must exchange data to ensure that VA makes payments only to those who are eligible for a program. Without an exchange of enrollment and eligibility data, VA would not be able to establish or verify applicant and recipient eligibility for the programs. Subject to the due process requirements, set forth in Article VII.B.1., 38 U.S.C. §3684A, VA may suspend, terminate, or make a final denial of any financial assistance on the basis of data produced by a computer matching program with DoD. To minimize administrative costs of implementation of the law and to maximize the service to the veteran or service member, a system of data exchanges and subsequent computer matching programs was developed. The purposes of the computer matching programs are to minimize the costs of administering the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Active Duty, the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Selected Reserve, Reserve Educational Assistance Program, and the Post-9/11 GI Xxxx program; facilitate accurate payment to eligible veterans or service members training under the Chapter of the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Active Duty, the Xxxxxxxxxx GI Xxxx — Selected Reserve, Reserve Educational Assistance Program, and the Post-9/11 GI Xxxx program; and to avoid payment to those who lose eligibility. The current automated systems, both at VA and DoD, have been developed over the last twenty-two years. The systems were specifically designed to utilize computer matching in transferring enrollment and eligibility data to facilitate accurate payments and avoid incorrect payments. The source agency, DMDC, stores eligibility data on its computer based system of record. The cost of providing this data to VA electronically are minimal when compared to the cost DMDC would incur if the data were forwarded to VA in a hard-copy manner. By comparing records electronically, VA avoids the personnel costs of inputting data manually as well as the storage costs of the DMDC documents. This results in a VA estimated annual savings of $26,724,091 to VA in mailing and data entry costs. DoD reported an estimated annual savings of $12,350,000. A cost-benefit analysis is at Attachment 1. In the 32 years since the inception of the Chapter 30 program, the cost savings of using computer matching to administer the benefit payments for these educational assistance programs have remained significant. The implementation of Chapter 33 has impacted the Chapter 30 program over the past 8 years (fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2017). Statistics show a decrease of 23 percent in the number of persons who ultimately use Chapter 30 from fiscal year 2015 to 2016. The number of persons who use Chapter 33 has consistently been above 700,000 in the past four years. VA foresees continued cost savings due to the number of persons eligible for the education programs.‌

  • Evaluation Results A. Evaluation results shall be used:

  • Justification and Anticipated Results The Privacy Act requires that each matching agreement specify the justification for the program and the anticipated results, including a specific estimate of any savings. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(o)(1)(B).

  • Results The five values obtained shall be arranged in order and the median value taken as a result of the measurement. This value shall be expressed in Newtons per centimetre of width of the tape. Annex 7 Minimum requirements for sampling by an inspector

  • Quantitative Results i. Total number and percentage of instances in which the IRO determined that the Paid Claims submitted by CHSI (Claim Submitted) differed from what should have been the correct claim (Correct Claim), regardless of the effect on the payment.

  • Expected Outcomes The educational goals and objectives for improving student achievement, including how much academic improvement students are expected to show each year, how student progress and performance will be evaluated and the specific results to be attained, as described in Section 5a of the application: Student Performance, Assessment and Evaluation.

  • - OWNERSHIP/USE OF THE RESULTS II.3.1 Unless stipulated otherwise in this agreement, ownership of the results of the action, including industrial and intellectual property rights, and of the reports and other documents relating to it shall be vested in the beneficiary.

  • Positive Test Results In the event an employee tests positive for drug use, the employee will be provided, in writing, notice of their right to explain the test results. The employee may indicate any relevant circumstance, including over the counter or prescription medication taken within the last thirty (30) days, or any other information relevant to the reliability of, or explanation for, a positive test result.

  • Expected Outcome With this waiver, the school will be able to implement its program and evaluate its teachers in accordance with its Performance Appraisal System, which is designed to produce greater accountability and be consistent with the school’s goals and objectives. This will benefit staff members as well as students and the community. Non-Automatic Waivers: Statute Description and Rationale and Replacement Plan

  • Test Results The employer, upon request from an employee or former employee, will provide the confidential written report issued pursuant to 4.9 of the Canadian Model in respect to that employee or former employee.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.