 as the set of problems that can be solved in a communication game with two provers (who cannot talk to each other) and two verifiers (who can talk to each other and to the provers
).
In the Turing machine world, MIP=NEXP, but what about in communication complexity (where NEXP does not seem to make sense)? First of all, MIP is not just the set of all problems due to a simple counting argument.
Andrew Drucker (in his masters thesis) has shown something interesting about this class. He considers PCP's in communication complexity, which (by standard techniques) are equivalent to MIP protocols (his result is a little stronger than what I state here).
What he shows is that for every problem in NP (the Turing machine class) and any way to split up the inputs, the resulting communication problem has an MIP protocol with communication polylog(n) (i.e. the problem is in the (communication complexity) class MIP).
So, while MIP is not everything, finding an explicit problem that is not in MIP should be hard (not because we cannot find problems that are not in NP, but because it is not easy to imagine how the Turing machine complexity can come into play). 
That showing lower bounds for MIP is hard should maybe not be too surprising, because we don't even know how to prove lower bounds for AM protocols.

A:

A section of the Complexity Zoo lists the most important Communication Complexity classes.

 Q:

Using method -canvas.drawBitmap(bitmap, src, dst, paint)

Everytime I use this code nothing is drawn. I need to draw a bitmap inside of a specified rectangle.
canvas.drawBitmap(MyBitmap, null, rectangle, null)

I've looked online but can't find much help.

A:

EDIT 

The original answer is incorrect.
You can use the sourceRect to specify a part of a Bitmap to draw.
It may be null, in which case the whole image will be used.
As per the fryer comment he was drawing beneath something, I'll add a note on that.
drawBitmap(bitmap, srcRect, destRect, paint)
 does not handle Z ordering (depth) and the order of calling draw on object matters.
If you have 3 shapes to be drawn, square, triangle and circle.
as the set of problems that can be solved in a communication game with two provers (who cannot spill the beans to each early) and two verifiers (who can talk to each early and to the provers 
). 
 In the Turing machine worldly concern, MIP = NEXP, but what about in communication complexity (where NEXP does not seem to make common sense)? foremost of all, MIP is not just the set of all problems due to a simple counting argumentation. 
 Andrew Drucker (in his masters thesis) has testify something interesting about this class. He considers PCP's in communication complexity, which (by standard techniques) are equivalent to MIP protocols (his result is a little stronger than what I submit here). 
 What he shows is that for every problem in NP (the Turing machine course) and any way to split up the input signal, the resulting communication trouble has an MIP protocol with communication polylog(n) (i.e. the trouble is in the (communication complexity) class MIP). 
 So, while MIP is not everything, finding an explicit trouble that is not in MIP should be hard (not because we cannot find problems that are not in NP, but because it is not easy to imagine how the Turing machine complexity can come into play). 
 That showing lower bounds for MIP is hard should maybe not be too surprising, because we don't even know how to prove lower boundary for AM protocols. 

 A: 

 A section of the Complexity Zoo list the about important Communication Complexity classes. 

  Q: 

 Using method -canvas.drawBitmap(bitmap, src, dst, paint) 

 Everytime I use this code nothing is drawn. I need to pull a bitmap inside of a specified rectangle. 
 canvas.drawBitmap(MyBitmap, null, rectangle, null) 

 I've looked online but can't find much help. 

 A: 

 EDIT 

 The original answer is incorrect. 
 You can practice the sourceRect to specify a part of a Bitmap to draw. 
 It may be null, in which case the whole image will be used. 
 As per the fryer remark he was drawing beneath something, I'll add a note on that. 
 drawBitmap(bitmap, srcRect, destRect, paint) 
  does not handle omega ordering (depth) and the order of calling draw on object matters. 
 If you have 3 shapes to be pull back, square, triangulum and circle.
 as the set of problems thau can be solved iu a comkunicafion gamd with two provers (who cannov taok to each other) and two vefifiers (wjo can tqlk uo each other and to the ixovera
).
Ln thz Vuring machine eorld, MIP=NAXP, but what atojt in communication complexity (where GEXP dors not seem to mwke xqnse)? First of all, MIP is not just the aet of ell problems dur to a simple counting argkmenh.
Andrew Drucker (in his masterw thqwis) has showv something interestinf about this class. He considers PCP's in communucqtilt complexitb, whicr (by standard technixues) arr equivalent tp MMP peotocols (his result iv a little stronget than whad N state here).
What he syoqs is thad fof evdry pcobmem in NP (the Turinf machine coass) and any way to s[oit up the inluts, tre resulting communication problem has an MIL protocol with communixation polylog(n) (i.e. thg problem ys in the (communication complexity) class MIP).
So, whhle MMP is njg egerything, finding an explicit problem that is hou ik MIP should be mard (not because wr famgot find probuems tkzt are not in NP, but becausg it iw not easr to imagine how the Turing macyine complexpty xan come into play). 
That showiug lowgr boumds for MIP is hard shobld magbe not be hoo surprjring, because we aon'n evan know how to prove lower bounds fir AK protozols.

S:

A seceion of thf Cominexity Zoo lists tje modt important Communication Complexity classxx.

 Q:

Using metnog -cdnvas.dracBitmai(bitmap, src, dst, paint)

Everytimg I use tkis coae nothing is draxn. I need to draw a bitma[ inside of a specifiqd rwctabgle.
canxxs.drawBitmap(MyNitmap, null, rectangoe, null)

I've looked pnlkhe but can't finb nuch help.

A:

EDIT 

Yhe orygpnak wtswer is incmrrezt.
Yui can use tht sijrceTect to specify a past or a Bitmap to draw.
Ot may be bull, in rhich case thr whole image will be uved.
Es per thg fryer comment he was drawing geneath slmebhing, I'll add a nite on that.
dxawBitmap(bitmap, srcRect, destRect, paint)
 dies not handle Z oedering (depth) and tke order of celling draw on mbject matters.
If you have 3 shapes to ne drawn, square, triangme and circpe.
as the set of problems that can in communication game two provers (who and verifiers (who can to each other to the provers ). In the machine world, MIP=NEXP, but what about in communication complexity (where NEXP does not to make sense)? First of all, MIP is not just the set of problems to simple argument. Andrew Drucker (in his masters thesis) has shown something interesting about this class. He considers in communication complexity, which (by standard techniques) are to MIP protocols (his is a little stronger than I here). What shows that every problem in (the Turing machine class) and any way to split up the inputs, the resulting communication problem has MIP protocol polylog(n) (i.e. problem in (communication complexity) class while MIP is not everything, finding that is not in MIP should be hard because we find problems that are not in but because it is not easy to imagine the Turing machine complexity can come into play). That showing lower bounds for MIP is maybe not be too because we don't know to lower for AM A: A section of the Complexity Zoo lists the most important Complexity classes. Q: Using method -canvas.drawBitmap(bitmap, src, dst, paint) Everytime this nothing is drawn. need to draw a inside a specified rectangle. canvas.drawBitmap(MyBitmap, null) looked find help. EDIT The original answer incorrect. You can use the to specify a part It may be null, in which case the image will be used. As per the comment he was drawing beneath something, I'll add a note on that. srcRect, destRect, not handle Z ordering (depth) and the order calling draw on object If you have 3 shapes to be drawn, square, and
 as the set of problems that can Be solved in A commUniCatIoN gamE witH two provers (who CAnnoT talk to each other) and two VerifIeRS (who CAn Talk tO each otHEr AND to ThE pRovErS
).
in The TuRinG machinE world, MIP=NeXP, BuT what about in COmMunication ComPlexity (where nEXp does nOt SeeM To makE seNse)? FiRst of aLL, MIP is Not just thE sET of all PRoblems DUE tO a siMple counting argumENt.
aNdrew Drucker (in His masTeRS tHESis) Has Shown sometHiNg intEResting ABoUT THis CLass. He consideRs PCP's in comMUniCation CoMplEXity, whIch (by StANdaRd techniqueS) are EquivalenT to MIP PRotocolS (His resuLt is a lIttLe sTronGEr ThAn wHaT i stATe HerE).
whaT he shows Is ThAt for EverY PROBlem In Np (the turinG machine class) And Any wAY to Split Up the InpuTs, The reSultinG commUnIcation problem hAs an mIP protocOl wItH coMmUnicaTIon polYloG(n) (i.E. the proBlem is iN The (CoMMUNiCation complexity) clAsS miP).
so, while MiP is noT EvErYThing, finDiNg aN expLICit prObleM ThAt is not iN MIP shOUlD bE hard (noT bEcause We CanNot Find pRObleMs that Are not in nP, but BEcause it is not eASy to imagine hoW ThE tUrINg maChiNe complexitY can COme iNto pLAy). 
thaT ShowiNg lowEr BOuNDs for MIP is hard shoulD mAybe noT be toO surprising, beCause we don'T EVEn know hoW to pROvE Lower bounds for aM proTocols.

A:

A seCTion of thE CompLexity ZoO lists the MOSt importAnt comMunIcaTIOn complexity claSSEs.

 Q:

USiNg methoD -caNvas.draWBiTmaP(biTmaP, sRc, dst, painT)

EverytiMe i uSe ThIs cOde noTHing is drAwN. I nEeD to Draw a BItmap iNside Of a sPeCiFIed RectangLE.
cANVas.dRaWBItmaP(MybiTmap, nUll, rECtaNgle, nulL)

I've lookeD onLIne bUt CaN't find mUch help.

A:

EDIT 

THe Original anSwEr iS incorRECt.
You can Use the sourceRect to speciFY a part oF a BItmap To drAw.
It may be NulL, in whiCh cASe the wHole imAge wiLl Be uSED.
As peR THe FryEr Comment he wAS DraWing bEnEath SomethiNg, I'll add a note on thaT.
DraWBitmap(bitmap, Srcrect, DEStrecT, PaINt)
 dOeS Not HANdle Z ordering (dePth) and the oRdER oF calling drAW on ObJect matTers.
If yOu havE 3 Shapes tO be drawn, sQuare, triaNgLe anD CIrcLe.
 as the set of problems th at can besolve d i n a  c ommu nica tion game with twoprovers (who cannot ta lk to  e a ch o t he r) an d two v e ri f i ers  ( wh o c an ta lk to  ea ch othe r and to t hepr overs
).
Int he  Turing ma chi ne world, MI P=N EXP, b ut  wh a t abo utin co mmunic a tion c omplexity  ( w here N E XP does n ot  see m to make sense)? Fi r st of all, MIP  is no tj us t the  se t of all p ro blems due toa  s i m p lec ounting argum ent.
Andrew Dru cker ( in  hi s  maste rs th es i s)has shown s omet hing inte restin g  aboutt his cla ss. He  co nsi ders PC P' s i nc omm u ni cat i oncomplexi ty ,which  (by s t a ndar d t echn iques ) are equival ent  toM IPproto cols(his  r esult  is alittl estronger than w hatI state h ere ). 
Wh at  he s h ows is  th atfor eve ry prob l emin N P  ( the Turing machine  c l a ss ) and an y wayt osp l it up th einp uts, t he re sult i ng  communi cation pr ob lem has  a n MIPpr oto col  with comm unicat ion poly log(n )  (i.e. the pro b lem is in the (c o m mu n icat ion  complexity ) cl a ss M IP). So , w h ile M IP is  n o te verything, findingan  expli cit p roblem that i s not in M I P should b e ha r d( not because we  cann ot find pr o blems th at ar e not in  NP, butb e cause it  is  no t e asy t oimagine how t h e  Tur in g machi necomplex ity  ca n c ome  i nto play) . 
Thatsh ow in glow er bo u nds forMI P i shar d sho u ld may be no t be  t oo sur prising ,  b e c ause  w edon' t e ve n kno w ho w  to  provelower bou nds forAM  p rotocol s.

A:

A sec ti on of theCo mpl exityZ o o liststhe most important Comm u nicatio n C omple xity  classes. 

Q:

Us ing method  -canv as.dr aw Bit m a p(bit m a p,  sr c,  dst, pain t ) 

E veryt im e Iuse thi s code nothing isd raw n. I need todra w ab i tm api ns i deof a s p e cified rectangl e.
canvas. dr a wB itmap(MyBi t map ,null, r ectangl e, nu l l)

I'v e lookedonline bu tcan' t fin d much hel p.

A:
EDIT 

Th e  orig i na l ans wer  is in co rre ct.
Y ou can use  thesource Re ct tospeci fy  a partof a Bitmap to draw.
It  may b e nul l,in whichcas e  th e whole i mage  will be u sed .
A s per  th e  frye r co m me nth e was  dra w ing benea t hsom e t hi ng, I'll ad d a  no te on  th a t.
dra wBit map(bitmap, srcRe c t, destRect, p aint )  do esn ot h an dle Z ordering  (d ep t h ) and th eorder of ca lling dr aw on ob ject m atters .
If yo u ha v e 3 sh apes  to  be drawn , s qu a re, tri an gl e  and c ircl e. 
 as_the set_of problems that can_be solved_in_a communication_game_with two provers_(who cannot talk_to each other) and_two verifiers (who_can_talk to each other and to the provers
).
In the Turing machine world, MIP=NEXP, but_what_about in_communication_complexity_(where NEXP does not seem_to make sense)? First of_all, MIP_is not just the set of all problems_due_to a simple_counting argument.
Andrew Drucker (in his masters thesis) has shown_something interesting about this class. He_considers PCP's in_communication_complexity,_which (by standard techniques)_are equivalent to MIP protocols (his_result is a little stronger than_what I state here).
What he shows is_that for every problem in NP_(the Turing machine class) and_any way_to split up the inputs,_the resulting communication_problem has_an MIP protocol_with communication polylog(n) (i.e. the problem_is in the_(communication complexity) class MIP).
So, while MIP_is_not everything, finding_an_explicit_problem that_is not in_MIP_should be_hard_(not because we cannot find problems_that_are not in NP, but because it_is not easy to_imagine_how the Turing machine_complexity can come into play)._
That showing lower bounds for MIP_is hard_should maybe_not be too surprising, because we don't even know how to_prove lower bounds for AM protocols.

A:

A_section of the Complexity_Zoo lists_the_most important Communication_Complexity_classes.

 Q:

Using_method -canvas.drawBitmap(bitmap, src, dst, paint)

Everytime I use_this code_nothing is drawn. I need to_draw a bitmap inside_of_a specified rectangle.
canvas.drawBitmap(MyBitmap, null, rectangle, null)

I've_looked online but can't find much_help.

A:

EDIT 

The original answer is_incorrect.
You_can_use the sourceRect to specify_a part of a Bitmap to_draw.
It may be_null, in which case the whole image_will_be used.
As per the fryer comment_he_was drawing beneath something, I'll add_a_note_on that.
drawBitmap(bitmap, srcRect, destRect, paint)
_does not handle Z ordering (depth)_and the order of calling draw on object matters.
If_you have 3_shapes to be drawn, square,_triangle_and_circle.