Figure 4 The relative deviation between the dimensionally hybrid potential from (19) and the potential (22) from image charges for.
Open image in new window Fig. 7 Deterministic, stochastic, fuzzy stochastic, and real outputs of WT and PV. Figure 8 shows the deviation between the actual output and the output of the deterministic prediction, stochastic model, and fuzzy stochastic model.
Figure 5 shows the deviation between the length of the extracted tools which subjects first used to probe for food, and the predicted length if they were choosing at random (see Materials and Methods).
Wiping away the first drop of blood from the fruit-exposed finger led to one point falling in zone C and 11% in zone B. Washing the fruit-exposed fingers with soap and water led to 95% of glucose concentrations falling within zone A. Figure 3 shows the deviation between the glucose concentrations for different pressures.
Note that the error bars in Figure 3 represent the standard deviation between the six animals in each experiment.
Moreover, very low relative deviation between the model estimations and the relevant actual BHP data is figured out to be less than 6%.
Figure 3 presents the difference in the standard deviation between the reconstructed and the original signal.
Figure 11, an EEM plot of the standard deviation between the first and second measurements, shows that the greatest standard deviation is around excitation 410, and emission 460.
Deviation between the tissue surface of the wax denture and the plaster cast was shown in Figure 2, the green area represents a good fit between them, yellow and red areas indicate a positive deviation (tissue surface locating above the cast surface), and the blue area indicates the presence of a negative deviation (tissue surface locating below the cast surface).
The deviation between the two structures is evaluated by their RMS values which could affect stability and functional activity (Supplementary Tables 2 4, Supplementary Figures 1 3).
