I've got the following list in SPSS:
Subjekt Reactiontime correct/incorrect
1 x 1
1 x 0
1 x 1
1 x 0
I now want to select all rows/cases that follow AFTER "0" (in the column correct/incorrect) because I want to compute the mean of all reactiontimes that come after "0".
How can I do that in SPSS?
One way to do this would be to add a column that keeps track of whether the prior row was equal to 0 in your correct field and then calculate the mean Reactiontime of those cases.
First let's make a variable to flag cases we want included in the average.
* set prev_correct to 0 if the prior case was 0 .
IF (LAG(correct)=0) prev_correct=0 .
* else set to -1 .
RECODE prev_correct (SYSMIS=-1) .
EXE .
Now we can calculate the mean reaction time, splitting by our new variable.
MEANS Reactiontime BY prev_correct /CELLS MEAN .
Or, if we only want to output the mean when prev_correct=0 .
TEMP .
SELECT IF prev_correct=0 .
MEANS Reactiontime /CELLS MEAN .
Here's a shorter approach (though less generic than #user45392's full process):
if lag(correct)=0 ReactiontimeAfter0=Reactiontime.
now you can just run means ReactiontimeAfter0.
Just a quick question here, how would COBOL deal with the following statement?
MOVE ZERO TO WS-SUB-2.
And then later:
PERFORM A100
VARYING WS-SUB FROM 1 BY 1
UNTIL WS-SUB > WS-SUB-2.
Reason being is I have a perform varying until where 2 variables are compared, but "WS-SUB-2" can be zero. I just need to know if "A100" would ever be performed.
A100 is never executed.
PERFORM is a loop with an explicit loop counter, which means it knows about the sequencing of each iteration. What exactly happens, is this:
WS-SUB is set to 1
The expression WS-SUB > WS-SUB-2 is evaluated.
If WS-SUB is greater than WS-SUB-2, then break out of the loop en continue with the next statement.
Else, then perform the A100 procedure; and at last WS-SUB is incremented by 1.
Because at the very start WS-SUB is greater than WS-SUB-2, the perform statement is instantly terminated, thus A100 is never executed.
It is a little hard to understand what exactly it is that you want. Here a few suggestions:
If you want A100 to be executed at least once, you can use this:
IF WS-SUB-2 = ZERO
MOVE 1 TO WS-SUB-2
END-IF
If you want to execute A100 WS-SUB-2 + 1 times, then either change UNTIL WS-SUB > WS-SUB-2 TO UNTIL WS-SUB > WS-SUB-2 + 1 or change FROM 1 to FROM 0.
No, A100 won't be executed. Because PERFORM by default is WITH TEST BEFORE. So as soon as PERFORM detects WS-SUB (1) is greater than WS-SUB2 (0), it stops. If you want A100 to perform once, you can use PERFORM WITH TEST AFTER. And in this case, A100 will run once.
I have this Cobol paragraph that will search one table which at this point in my example would have a table counter of 2 which is what the first INDEX loop does. The variable A represents an Occurs that is defined in a file (include) which has 5 occurrences. I can get to the if statement but it returns false. I read the information out of a ParmCard and store that in the table which is Table-B and the ParmCard is correct.
I did get it to find one value when was changing values around (conditional statements) but I know that both of the values that it is looking for in the ParmCard are in the file and should be found and it should find two results. I would have tried Expeditor but the system was down at work.
Is there something wrong with the index or may be I think that the perform's are working one way but they are really working a different way? This Search paragraph gets executed with every read of the ID file thus it will look in the table as many times as the ID file has an ID and ID symbols are unique.
Question: Why would the IF-STATEMENT not be working?
Code:
SEARCH-PARAGRAPH.
PERFORM VARYING SUB FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL SUB > 2 <--DUPLICATE INDEXER
IF A(TAB) = TABLE-B(SUB) THEN
MOVE 6 TO TAB
MOVE 'TRUE' TO FOUND-IS
PERFORM WRITE-FILE THRU X-WF
PERFORM LOG-RESULT THRU X-LR
END-IF
END-PERFORM
X-SP. EXIT.
SEARCH-INDEX.
PERFORM VARYING I FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL I > 2
DISPLAY 'INDEX --> ' I
PERFORM VARYING TAB FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL TAB > 5
DISPLAY 'TAB --> ' TAB
PERFORM SEARCH-PARAGRPAH THRU X-SP
END-PERFORM
END-PERFORM.
X-SEARCH-INDEX. EXIT.
Here is the way that it works now and I do get the results I want. It is difficult to past the company code up because you never know who might have a problem.
New Code:
READ-PROV.
READ P-FILE
AT END
MOVE 'Y' TO EOF2
GO TO X-READ-PROV
NOT AT END
ADD 1 TO T-REC-READ
MOVE P-RECORD TO TEST-RECORD
PERFORM CHECK-MATCH THRU X-CHECK-MATCH
END-READ.
X-READ-PROV. EXIT.
CHECK-MATCH.
PERFORM VARYING SUB FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL SUB > TABLECOUNTER
IF PID >= FROM(SUB) AND
PID <= THRU(SUB) THEN
IF TODAY < P-END-DTE THEN
IF TOTAL-PD = 0 AND
TOTAL-PD = 0 AND
TOTAL-PD = 0 AND
TOTAL-PD = 0 AND
TOTAL-PD = 0 THEN
IF PBILLIND NOT EQUAL 'Y'
PERFORM VARYING TAB FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL TAB > 5
IF P-CD(TAB) = TY(SUB) THEN
MOVE 6 TO TAB
DISPLAY('***Found***')
ADD 1 TO T-REC-FOUND
END-IF
END-PERFORM
END-IF
END-IF
END-IF
END-IF
END-PERFORM.
X-CM. EXIT.
We can't tell.
There is nothing "wrong" with your nested PERFORM. The IF test is failing simply because it is never true.
We can't get you further with that without seeing your data-definitions, sample input and expected output.
However... my guess would be that the problem is with your data from the PARM in the JCL. That is the most likely area.
It is of course possible that the problem is with the other definition.
A couple of things whilst waiting.
Please always post the actual code, always. We don't want to look for errors in what you have typed here, we want to see the actual code. You have not shown the actual code, because it will not compile, as INDEX is a Reserved Word in COBOL, so you can't use it for a data-name.
Please always bear in mind that what you think may be wrong may not be the problem, so post everything we are likely to need (data-definitions, data you used, actual results you got with the code (including anything you've added for problem-determination), results which were expected).
Some tips.
A paragraph requires a full-stop/period after the paragraph-name and before the next paragraph. If you put that second full-stop/period on a line of its own, and have no full-stops/periods attached to your PROCEDURE code itself, you'll make things look neater and avoid problems when you want to copy some lines which happen to have a full-stop/period to a place where they cause you a mess.
You are using literal values. This is bad. When the number of entries in one of your tables changes, you have to change those literal values. Say the 2 needs to be changed to 5. You have to look at every occurrence of the literal 2 and decide if it needs to be changed. Then change it to 5. Then you get another request, to change the table which originally had five entries so that it will have six. See how difficult/error-prone life can be?
If instead you have unique and well-named data-names for your maximum number of entries, you only have one place to make a change, and you know it can be changed without reference to the rest of the code (assuming someone clever hasn't seen it has a value they want for something, and use it despite its name, of course...).
The content of those fields you can set automatically:
01 TABLE-1.
05 FILLER OCCURS 2 TIMES.
10 A PIC X(10).
01 TABLE-2.
05 FILLER OCCURS 5 TIMES.
10 TABLE-B PIC X(10).
01 TABLE-1-NO-OF-ENTRIES COMP PIC 9(4).
01 TABLE-2-NO-OF-ENTRIES COMP PIC 9(4).
...
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
...
COMPUTE TABLE-1-NO-OF-ENTRIES = LENGTH OF TABLE-1
/ LENGTH OF A
COMPUTE TABLE-2-NO-OF-ENTRIES = LENGTH OF TABLE-2
/ LENGTH OF TABLE-B
DISPLAY TABLE-1-NO-OF-ENTRIES
DISPLAY TABLE-2-NO-OF-ENTRIES
That gives you the output 2 and 5.
The names I've used are a mixture of yours and some for demonstration purposes only. Make everything meaningful, and by that I don't mean trite, as my example names would be in real life.
If you insist on escaping from within your PERFORM like that (and take note of Bruce Martin's comment), you can calculate your escape value by using new, aptly-named, fields and giving them the value of the above plus one.
To do a nested loop when the outer loop only has two entries is overkill. You don't need to escape out of the loops like you do, if you have a termination condition on the loop.
That'll do for now until we see your definitions, data and results.
I have a VB6 form with a text boxes for minimum and maximum values. The text boxes have a MaxLength of 4, and I have code for the keyPress event to limit it to numeric entry. The code checks to make sure that max > min, however it is behaving very strangely. It seems to be comparing the values in scientific notation or something. For example, it evaluates 30 > 200 = true, and 100 > 20 = false. However if I change the entries to 030 > 200 and 100 > 020, then it gives me the correct answer. Does anyone know why it would be acting this way?
My code is below, I am using control arrays for the minimum and maximum text boxes.
For cnt = 0 To 6
If ParameterMin(cnt) > ParameterMax(cnt) Then
MsgBox ("Default, Min, or Max values out of range. Line not updated.")
Exit Sub
End If
Next cnt
That is how text comparison behaves for numbers represented as variable length text (in general, not just VB6).
Either pad with zeros to a fixed length and continue comparing as text (as you noted)
OR
(preferable) Convert to integers and then compare.
If I understood correctly, you can alter the code to
If Val(ParameterMin(cnt)) > Val(ParameterMax(cnt)) Then
I wish to advise one thing -(IMHO...) if possible, avoid checking data during key_press/key_up/key_down .
Can you change the GUI to contain a "submit" button and check your "form" there ?
Hope I helped...
I'm puzzling over how to map a set of sequences to consecutive integers.
All the sequences follow this rule:
A_0 = 1
A_n >= 1
A_n <= max(A_0 .. A_n-1) + 1
I'm looking for a solution that will be able to, given such a sequence, compute a integer for doing a lookup into a table and given an index into the table, generate the sequence.
Example: for length 3, there are 5 the valid sequences. A fast function for doing the following map (preferably in both direction) would be a good solution
1,1,1 0
1,1,2 1
1,2,1 2
1,2,2 3
1,2,3 4
The point of the exercise is to get a packed table with a 1-1 mapping between valid sequences and cells.
The size of the set in bounded only by the number of unique sequences possible.
I don't know now what the length of the sequence will be but it will be a small, <12, constant known in advance.
I'll get to this sooner or later, but though I'd throw it out for the community to have "fun" with in the meantime.
these are different valid sequences
1,1,2,3,2,1,4
1,1,2,3,1,2,4
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
1,1,1,1,2,3,2
these are not
1,2,2,4
2,
1,1,2,3,5
Related to this
There is a natural sequence indexing, but no so easy to calculate.
Let look for A_n for n>0, since A_0 = 1.
Indexing is done in 2 steps.
Part 1:
Group sequences by places where A_n = max(A_0 .. A_n-1) + 1. Call these places steps.
On steps are consecutive numbers (2,3,4,5,...).
On non-step places we can put numbers from 1 to number of steps with index less than k.
Each group can be represent as binary string where 1 is step and 0 non-step. E.g. 001001010 means group with 112aa3b4c, a<=2, b<=3, c<=4. Because, groups are indexed with binary number there is natural indexing of groups. From 0 to 2^length - 1. Lets call value of group binary representation group order.
Part 2:
Index sequences inside a group. Since groups define step positions, only numbers on non-step positions are variable, and they are variable in defined ranges. With that it is easy to index sequence of given group inside that group, with lexicographical order of variable places.
It is easy to calculate number of sequences in one group. It is number of form 1^i_1 * 2^i_2 * 3^i_3 * ....
Combining:
This gives a 2 part key: <Steps, Group> this then needs to be mapped to the integers. To do that we have to find how many sequences are in groups that have order less than some value. For that, lets first find how many sequences are in groups of given length. That can be computed passing through all groups and summing number of sequences or similar with recurrence. Let T(l, n) be number of sequences of length l (A_0 is omitted ) where maximal value of first element can be n+1. Than holds:
T(l,n) = n*T(l-1,n) + T(l-1,n+1)
T(1,n) = n
Because l + n <= sequence length + 1 there are ~sequence_length^2/2 T(l,n) values, which can be easily calculated.
Next is to calculate number of sequences in groups of order less or equal than given value. That can be done with summing of T(l,n) values. E.g. number of sequences in groups with order <= 1001010 binary, is equal to
T(7,1) + # for 1000000
2^2 * T(4,2) + # for 001000
2^2 * 3 * T(2,3) # for 010
Optimizations:
This will give a mapping but the direct implementation for combining the key parts is >O(1) at best. On the other hand, the Steps portion of the key is small and by computing the range of Groups for each Steps value, a lookup table can reduce this to O(1).
I'm not 100% sure about upper formula, but it should be something like it.
With these remarks and recurrence it is possible to make functions sequence -> index and index -> sequence. But not so trivial :-)
I think hash with out sorting should be the thing.
As A0 always start with 0, may be I think we can think of the sequence as an number with base 12 and use its base 10 as the key for look up. ( Still not sure about this).
This is a python function which can do the job for you assuming you got these values stored in a file and you pass the lines to the function
def valid_lines(lines):
for line in lines:
line = line.split(",")
if line[0] == 1 and line[-1] and line[-1] <= max(line)+1:
yield line
lines = (line for line in open('/tmp/numbers.txt'))
for valid_line in valid_lines(lines):
print valid_line
Given the sequence, I would sort it, then use the hash of the sorted sequence as the index of the table.