Distributed Discrete Hashing by Equivalent Continuous Formulation

Author(s):  
Shengnan Wang ◽  
Chunguang Li ◽  
Hui-Liang Shen
2009 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 126-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor A. Branch

Fishing gear selectivity varies among different types of fish (e.g., species, age, sex, or length groups), but their relative catch composition also depends on the fishing process. The continuous (Baranov) formulation assumes that fishing mortality and natural mortality occur together during the fishing season and that there are multiple encounters between fish and fishing gear. For this formulation, predicted catch composition depends on fishing mortality, and at high fishing mortality levels the entire population can be caught provided the selectivity is nonzero for all age groups. In contrast, the discrete formulation assumes that fishing mortality occurs separately from natural mortality and that fish encounter at most only one set of fishing gear. The discrete formulation is easier to compute, but the predicted catch composition is independent of fishing mortality, and some of the population remains unexploitable. The correct choice of equations depends on the particular fishery and fishing mortality levels; at low fishing mortality levels the predictions differ little, but at high fishing mortality levels where multiple gear encounters could occur, the continuous formulation is preferable.


2015 ◽  
Vol 105 (6) ◽  
pp. 464-480
Author(s):  
Lei Cheng ◽  
Stefano Mattei ◽  
Peter W. Fick ◽  
Steve J. Hulshoff

2010 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 766-768
Author(s):  
Trevor A. Branch

Francis (2010. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 67: 763–765) writes a thoughtful response detailing concerns with my suggestion that the continuous (Baranov) catch formulation is preferable to the discrete catch formulation when fishing mortality is high (T.A. Branch. 2009. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 66: 126–132). He suggests the discrete formulation allows for multiple gear encounters and that formulation choice should depend on which formulation better fits the data. Here I first distinguish between gear selectivity and availability and then show that our two views are complementary: the original assumes fish groups with differing gear selectivity but full availability, whereas Francis assumes fish groups fully selected by fishing gear but with differing availability. I maintain that the discrete formulation only models a single instantaneous interaction between fish and fishing gear and therefore only part of the population can be caught if fish groups have equal gear selectivity that is less than 100%, whereas under the same assumptions, the continuous formulation would allow the entire population to be caught. Finally, when the balance between gear selectivity and availability is unknown, I agree that formulation choice could be driven by model fits to the data, although formulation choice could also be based on how the fishery operates.


2007 ◽  
Vol 130 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Besset ◽  
L. Jézéquel

Modal synthesis methods have long been studied because the use of generalized coordinates makes it possible to reduce calculation costs. Our approach uses modes to describe each part of the assembly of several substructures. This method, called “Double Modal Synthesis,” is presented through primal and dual formulations. As modal truncation usually introduces a lack of precision, we will use an ω2 development if necessary. These formulations will first be explained using a continuous formulation. A finite element method will then be proposed. Another aim of the paper is to introduce formulations needed to understand the multimodal analysis methods that will be presented in a forthcoming paper.


2013 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 085013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurent Freidel ◽  
Marc Geiller ◽  
Jonathan Ziprick

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document