On 12/26/2012 3:27 PM, Roger Stafford wrote: > "Nasser M. Abbasi" wrote in message <email@example.com>... >> So, how did the second the second column suddenly change from 3:6 to now >> becoming 3:4? and the 9th column which was supposed to be 56:67 now become >> >> Are you solving 2 different problems at the same time? >> >> Strange. Any way. Not important. Just wanted to point out that what >> you are asking for now, is not what you wrote. >> >> --Nasser > - - - - - - - - - -
> Nasser, where Michael states that "the ranges in my first post are just an example",
But OP said that these are "just" an example, only later on, and _not_ the first time they asked the question. First time the question was asked, it did not say anything that input can change and how it can change. Here is the question again
-------------------------------------- I want to create a 40X9 matrix and store it as a variable, but the matrix elements must be "parametric", meaning that i want the elements of the: first column to take random integer values in the range 0:2 (i.e. integers 0 or 1 or 2), second column to take random integer values in the range 3:6 (i.e. 3 or 4 or 5 or 6), ... ninth column to take random integer values within the range 56:67 (i.e. 56 or 57...67) ---------------------------------------------
I do not see anything in the above saying that the interval can change and how it can change.
>he is indicating that he wishes to have those ranges subject to change rather than having a >fixed set of them.
Yes. But that was later on.
> That is why I wrote the code with an adjustable vector c >which determines the intervals. I think that is what he was hinting at by >the word 'parametric' in the subject title. >
You always had a good way to read into the minds of people who ask questions here :)
I tend not to read minds and not second guess, but answer the question as was asked.
> I'll have to confess that I too was initially mislead into assuming that >last interval was 52:62 and had a vectorized code all ready to present to do just >that. The confusion would have been avoided if he had stated the desired >variability of the intervals in the first post. > > Roger Stafford >
Yes. Ofcourse. having clear specification is always a good thing to do in science and mathematics. Too bad that many questions asked are sloppy and with no clear specifications and only after many tries one will start to find what the person is actually asking for.