https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110993
--- Comment #42 from xghost <h.k.gh...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Stéphane Guillou (stragu) from comment #41) > both Regina and I have provided evidence (tested other tools, linked to > documentation on how a cubic spline interpolation can result in negative > values even if dataset only has positive values...) that suggest that this > works as expected. Stéphane, the only things the evidence you've both provided shows is: 1. that other systems that chose to implement the same method have the same problems, b/c the problem is the chosen method itself --even when the implementation itself is correct; 2. that you already had prior knowledge of the fact that, even when implemented correctly, the method itself behaves incorrectly in some cases. I hope it's not asking too much for you to understand that having prior knowledge of something behaving incorrectly does not magically make the incorrect behavior "correct" or "not a bug". At the expense (re)stating what should be plainly obvious, imagine, as an example, if car manufacturers attempted to use your own line of reasoning for safety recalls: "Your honor, we already knew that our wiring methods were a fire hazard, and some cars actually did catch on fire; however, other car manufacturers have the same problem and we expected that to be a fire hazard. Therefore, there's no fire hazard." TL;DR: *Insert this-is-fine-dog meme* It's a word game where the meaning of "correct behavior" is redefined so that it includes incorrect behavior as part of it. Can't go wrong with that approach ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > Your response to the evidence we provide is "it's obviously wrong". Because it is. I'm not going to publish an academic research paper or an elaborate argument on why something that gives a wrong result is "obviously wrong". That's self-evidently true and I'd rather not resort to having to use simpler language if I can avoid it. Your prior knowledge of the incorrect behavior does not make it correct. If you were to be given a calculator that's expected to say `2 + 2 != 4`, which is a result that's "Obviously Wrong"(tm), claiming that it's "correct" simply b/c it was already known, and expected, to give a wrong results would be not only unreasonable, but absurd --and yet, that's precisely the kind of "argument" that you've both provided. I hope you can understand my level of skepticism at your line of reasoning in this thread. > If the interpolation method is not the right one for you, please use another > one that is already available in LibreOffice I guess I will have to look into that, b/c I was not aware that there were other interpolation methods in there. I can only cross my fingers that it won't be a repeat of this thread for some other method X. > or open a new ticket suggesting the addition of a new interpolation method, > as kindly suggested by Regina. The "kind suggestion" basically asks for a new method and a proof[1]. I'm not a mathematician, and even if I were one, you'd still have to forgive me for not being able to come up with a new mathematical method for line interpolation, a theoretical proof for it, and then another proof that it actually works within a computer on-demand. I'd be more understanding of your position if your response had been something like "You know, it's a known limitation. We really don't know how to solve that and, to the best of our knowledge, there's no other known line interpolation method that could be implemented to address this issue [...]", or something communicating the a similar idea. However, that was never your response; rather, it was "this is correct and there's no problem here". [1] "When writing an enhancement request it would be useful if it points to a suitable method and to a proof, that the method solves the problem." > I do however take this ticket as a need to improve our documentation to be > explicit about which method is used for cubic spline interpolation. Of course... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Regards. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
