[Tmrg] Round-table PFLDnet submission

[Cesar Marcondes]

Yes, I agree on this approach.

On Nov 26, 2007 7:54 AM, Lachlan Andrew <lachlan.andrew at gmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings Cesar,
>
>
> On 26/11/2007, Cesar Marcondes <cmarcond06 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 2007 4:46 PM, Lachlan Andrew <lachlan.andrew at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On possibility would then be to choose one or two "typical" set of
> > > parameters, and have a set of tests which varies only one of the
> > > parameters from that "typical" list.  Do the sums to see how many
> > > tests you end up with to work out how many "typcial" sets will be
> > > needed.  What do people on the list think of that approach?
> >
> > I think the general scenario could explore a good sub-space of
> > parameters that fit in a 3-day simulation. I believe that's the right
> > thing to do.
>
> Yes, we should explore a good sub-set.
>
> When I said "a set of tests which varies only one of the parameters",
> I should have said that each test varies a *different* parameter (they
> don't all just vary the same parameter!).  If we have three or four
> base "typical" scenarios and in each scenario we explore the impact of
> each parameter (or most parameters), I think that will allow a
> reasonably varied subset of scenarios to be explored.  Do you agree?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Lachlan