lifeline | RailsRumble 2009 - Instead of a newsfeed , display | Calendar library

The specification doesn't say this explicitely, but I think this is the definition of link used:

Two objects are said to be linked, when they can interact with each other.

There are several places in the specification that talk about links. The most general one I found in 11.2.3.3

Each link may be realized by something as simple as a pointer or by something as complex as a network connection, and may represent the possibility of instances being able to communicate because their identities are known by virtue of being passed in as parameters, held in variables or slots, or even because the communicating instances are the same instance.

From this I derived my simple definition.

So, I disagree, links are not "solely defined as instances of associations". This misunderstanding probably stems from the fact, that specifying links with InstanceSpecifications is only possible for Associations: Each InstanceSpecification that wants to have slots for the linked InstanceSpecifications must have an Association as Classifier. But - links can be there even if they are not specified. And they can be specified by other model elements.

These other link specifying model elements include connectors in composite structure diagrams or messages in interaction diagrams or attributes and parameters in class diagrams.

Communication diagrams are just a way to show an interaction. They have the same underlying metamodel instances as a sequence diagram. Therefore, even though there are lines in between the lifelines, there is no corresponding model element. They are just there to have a place for attaching the message symbols (see Table 17.4 Graphic Paths Included in Communications Diagrams).

It is possible for a message to reference a connector. So, you can view the line in the communication diagram as a visual representation of this connector. However, it is not necessary to model the connector explicitely. There are tools that will require a connector, but in the specification the connector is optional.

As you say, there are no stereotypes to describe how objects know each other. You would need to define your own. However, there are other possibilities: A Lifeline represents a connectable element, which can either be a parameter or an attribute (or a variable, but nobody uses them). By looking at the represented attribute, you can find out, whether it is a global or local attribute and whether it is an association end.

Having said that, there is a catch. Officially all represented elements must belong directly or indirectly to the context class of the interaction (same_classifier constraint in 17.12.17.5). In most cases I encounter, this context is just the system. This means, all attributes must be global. I had a long conversation with the author of this section, and found out, that the idea was, that an interaction should belong to a collaboration and the connection to the system is via CollaborationUses and roleBindings. This is the reason, why MagicDraw automatically creates a Collaboration for each Interaction.

This adds another level of indirection, which solves, as we know ;-) all problems in computer science. Fortunately, most tools don't enforce this rule, so we are free to let our lifelines represent attributes and parameters of real components of our systems.

Well, yes. And no. It always depends on your audience. SDs are not meant for graphical programming but to show (more or less) collaboration between objects. Preferably only complicated ones. So you are asking for a triviality. And probably nobody is interested how the println will be worked at in the system stomach. Except you want to implement the println itself. So there are three ways. Either you create a lifeline for the according system object and pass that as a message. Or you simply (!) add a note that the result will be printed. Finally you can just skip it. The println itsef would be (I guess) of lessest interest and you are more about where the data for it will be derived from.

In short: don't overdo SDs. KISS

N.B. The create messages in your diagram go slightly upward. That's not so good (I haven't checked whether that's actually wrong). But time goes down in a SD. So that would be a time travel back. Either the messages are straight or they are down (if you want to show some timeing constraint).

Where do you call storeUserHighscore method ?

Also, I believe the first if statement is un-necessary.

refactor to be like this.

There is problem with duplicated columns names like here a, a columns, solution for deduplicated is use GroupBy.cumcount with DataFrame.stack for all DataFrames with duplicates:

problem is with the input dimensions, Conv1D expects input of shape 3D but in this case it 2D.

Conv1D needs to have a 3D shape data [batch_size, time_steps, feature_size]

Example,If we provide for each of the 50 batch samples, for each of the 2 time steps, a 100 dimensional vector: Input data shape should be something like,

The entire premise of your question is incorrect.

The question and answer you cite are way outdated and wrong. Views are not magically unloaded and reloaded. viewDidLoad can never be called more than once by the runtime on a given VC instance, and using it for onetime early lifetime tasks is correct.

As for your question itself: No VC will ever be forcibly destroyed by the runtime due to low memory. If your memory usage is excessive and you fail to reduce it, the runtime does not dismantle piecemeal the object structure of your app; it kills your entire app.

The jupyter notebooks are run on Anaconda Powershell, and so are the environments and packages.

Installing on the Windows Powershell will never work. Running the conda install -c conda-forge lifelines in the Anaconda shell solved the issue.

So silly, yet so time consuming it is worth sharing.

The transformation of continuous variables into categorical variables is far from obvious. A first approach can be based on the existing literature, especially in medicine/biology. A review of the existing literature may be sufficient to create these classes. Another method can be based on the empirical distribution of the T-Cells variable, sometimes highlighting an "obvious" categorization. The use of an ROC curve can be a good idea but somehow I don't think it is necessary. Categorizing your variable in Kaplan-Meier type survival analyses is necessary, but if you use Cox models there is no need to categorize this variable. So I would advise you to turn to Cox regressions to conduct your survival analysis. A Cox regression would allow you to add several predictors in your modeling as well as interaction terms, which is more convenient.

The given clearly states the problem:

ConvergenceError: Convergence halted due to matrix inversion problems. Suspicion is high collinearity. Please see the following tips in the lifelines documentation: https://lifelines.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Examples.html#problems-with-convergence-in-the-cox-proportional-hazard-modelMatrix is singular.

Without the real data I can't give any further advice. But the lifelines documentation gives a lot of advice on this issue:

Convergence halted due to matrix inversion problems: This means that there is high collinearity in your dataset. That is, a column is equal to the linear combination of 1 or more other columns. A common cause of this error is dummying categorical variables but not dropping a column, or some hierarchical structure in your dataset. Try to find the relationship by: adding a penalizer to the model, ex: CoxPHFitter(penalizer=0.1).fit(…) until the model converges. In the print_summary(), the coefficients that have high collinearity will have large (absolute) magnitude in the coefs column. using the variance inflation factor (VIF) to find redundant variables. looking at the correlation matrix of your dataset, or

This is very likely not an error caused by lifelines instead it is your data or how you apply the model on your data.