In this paper we consider very weak solutions and show that if the obstacle function is, then a very weak solution to the -obstacle problem is locally bounded.
In the case of the AML1 CFO estimator two paths have been considered to avoid to lose a strong path and, moreover, to avoid to consider very weak paths.
If the number of paths is not known in advance, a sufficiently high number of paths should be considered to avoid to lose a strong path and, moreover, to avoid to consider very weak paths.
On the other hand, a competency C2 at a level 5.2 will be considered very near and weaker than C1 because it has the same skill's level but with a lower performance level.
A kappa value <0.5 is considered weak, 0.5 0.7 fair, and >0.7 is considered very good concordance.
Also, we must point out that the correlation level estimated regarding H1, H4 and H5 should be considered as very weak, weak and moderate respectively.
Samples deemed 1+, 2+, 3+, or 4+ were considered positive (very weak, weak, strong, very strong, respectively).
Values between 1 and 19 were considered as very weak, between 20 and 49 as weak, between 50 and 79 as moderate and between 80 and 100 as high expression.
However, this is generally considered a very weak endpoint, also reached by placebo in many patients, so that many clinical studies prefer at least 75%% reduction in seizure frequency.
As suggested by Rowntree [ 28] correlation coefficients below 0.2 were considered as very weak or negligible, between 0.2 and 0.4 as weak or low, between 0.4 and 0.7 as moderate, between 0.7 and 0.9 as strong, high or marked, and above 0.9 as very strong or very high.
