Re: Update: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

--- Al Chou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here is an updated version. I will try to submit a patch to the > > task.xml reflecting this before I leave this AM, but I am running out of > > time... > > > > * Improve numerical accuracy of Univariate an

Re: Update: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

--- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is an updated version. I will try to submit a patch to the > task.xml reflecting this before I leave this AM, but I am running out of > time... > > * Improve numerical accuracy of Univariate and BivariateRegression > statistical > > computations

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

Phil Steitz wrote: That's where I started, but then Tim and others convinced me that it was actually better/more convenient for users for us to behave more like java.Math and java's own arithmetic functions -- which use NaN all over the place. Uh, oh. That's probably because of IEEE 854 does so.

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

Al Chou wrote: So I pulled out Herr Pietschmann's Brent method class and tested it, and it threw an exception telling me, "Possibly multiple zeros in interval or ill conditioned function." Caused by an incomplete and much too naive implementation. I have now a real implementation of Brent (Brent-De

RE: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 00:15, Brent Worden wrote: > Here's a saying I've used in the past when debating colleagues: "Just > because someone else does something, that doesn't make it right." :) Please see the previous discussions on the issue, use the Eyebrowse archive to read the relevant IEEE stan

RE: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 23:26, Brent Worden wrote: > > There are several approaches to design a concept for exceptions, > > all of which have pros and cons. I personally would suggest to > > avoid returning NaNs and throwing RuntimeExceptions whereever > > possible and use a package specific hierarch

RE: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

> -Original Message- > From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >>There are several approaches to design a concept for exceptions, > >>all of which have pros and cons. I personally would suggest to > >>avoid returning NaNs and throwing RuntimeExceptions whereever > >>possible and

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

Brent Worden wrote: -Original Message- From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 3:06 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release Al Chou wrote: Finally, having used the Pietschmann

RE: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

> -Original Message- > From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 3:06 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial > release > > > Al Chou wrote: &

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

Brent Worden wrote: -Original Message- From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 3:04 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release Phil Steitz wrote: My philosophy on this is that

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

Brent Worden wrote: -Original Message- From: Al Chou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 2:14 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release --- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Brent

RE: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

> -Original Message- > From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 3:04 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial > release > > > Phil Steitz wrote: > &

RE: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

> -Original Message- > From: Al Chou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 2:14 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial > release > > > --- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTE

Re: [math] Static Utils and Methods (was: Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release)

Mark R. Diggory wrote: Phil Steitz wrote: --- "Mark R. Diggory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I disagree. We need it ourselves, unless we want to duplicate code between UnivariateImpl and AbstractStoreUnivariate. Also, I personally and I am sure many other users would like simple array-based f

Re: [math] Static Utils and Methods (was: Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release)

--- "O'brien, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 16:26, Mark R. Diggory wrote: > > [-1] > > > > Um, I'm not too clear on this one, how is calling > > MathUtils.isPositive(d) clearer than (d >= 0)? > > [+0], Mark, if I follow the discussion correctly, the concept isn't > tryi

Re: [math] Static Utils and Methods (was: Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release)

--- "Mark R. Diggory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I included Al's functions because they were a little more complex than > that, they provided different return type when dealing with different > evaluations. Of course these could be captured inline quite easily as > well with examples like: >

Re: [math] Static Utils and Methods (was: Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release)

--- "Mark R. Diggory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Al Chou wrote: > > --- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > >Simple methods like isPositive, isNegative, etc. can be used to make > >boolean expressions more human readable. I'm willing to build those two > >on top of s

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 14:23, Phil Steitz wrote: > Al Chou wrote: > I actually was thinking the other way around. If you feel strongly > about keeping these things in stat, we can create StatUtils. The point > is to encapsulate these basic functions so that a) users can get them > immediately w

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

--- "J.Pietschmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Al Chou wrote: > > Finally, having used the Pietschmann root finder framework, I think it > needs > > some modification to make it more user-friendly. As a lay user, I would > have > > been much happier dealing with Brent W.'s interface than Herr >

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

--- "J.Pietschmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Al Chou wrote: > > I may have time to submit my Ridders' method implementation using J.'s > > framework before he returns 2 days hence. Should I bother to try, or > should I > > wait until he submits his code as a patch via Bugzilla? > > I'm a bit

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

--- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Al Chou wrote: > > --- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Al Chou wrote: > >>>--- Brent Worden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >-Original Message- > >From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 12:2

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

Al Chou wrote: Finally, having used the Pietschmann root finder framework, I think it needs some modification to make it more user-friendly. As a lay user, I would have been much happier dealing with Brent W.'s interface than Herr Pietschmann's, which was kind of cumbersome. I think, though, with

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

CTED] > >>>>Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 12:21 PM > >>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>Subject: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial > >>>>release > >>> > > [deletia] > > > >>>Things that m

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

Phil Steitz wrote: My philosophy on this is that whatever exceptions we define should be "close" to the components that throw them -- e.g. ConvergenceException. I do not like the idea of a generic "MathException." As much as possible, I think that we should rely on the built-ins (including the

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

Al Chou wrote: I may have time to submit my Ridders' method implementation using J.'s framework before he returns 2 days hence. Should I bother to try, or should I wait until he submits his code as a patch via Bugzilla? I'm a bit short on spare time anyway. J.Pietschmann

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

Al Chou wrote: --- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Al Chou wrote: --- Brent Worden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -Original Message- From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 12:21 PM [deletia] Something similar to JUnit's assertEquals(double expected,

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

Brent Worden wrote: -Original Message- * t-test statistic needs to be added and we should probably add the capability of actually performing t- and chi-square tests at fixed significance levels (.1, .05, .01, .001). -- This is virtually done, just need to define a nice, convenient interfac

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

Al Chou wrote: --- Al Chou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [deletia] OK, long-winded disclaimer aside, here is how I see the task list ordered: [deletia] * Framework and implementation strategie(s) for finding roots or real-valued functions of one (real) va

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

Al Chou wrote: --- Brent Worden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -Original Message- From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 12:21 PM [deletia] * Exponential growth and decay (set up for financial applications) I think this is just going to be a matter of finding

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

Brent Worden wrote: -Original Message- From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 12:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release Here is a *proposed* ordering for the task list, with a little commentary

RE: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

--- Brent Worden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 12:21 PM [deletia] > > * Exponential growth and decay (set up for financial > > applications) I think this > > is just going to be a matter of f

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

--- Al Chou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [deletia] > > OK, long-winded disclaimer aside, here is how I see the task list ordered: [deletia] > > * Framework and implementation strategie(s) for finding roots or > real-valued > > functions of one (real) var

RE: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

> -Original Message- > From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 12:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial > release > > > Here is a *proposed* ordering for the task lis

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

--- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>* Improve numerical accuracy of Univariate and BivariateRegression > >>statistical > >>computations. Encapsulate basic double[] |-> double mean, variance, min, > max > >>computations using improved formulas and add these to MathUtils. (probably > >>sho

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

* Improve numerical accuracy of Univariate and BivariateRegression statistical computations. Encapsulate basic double[] |-> double mean, variance, min, max computations using improved formulas and add these to MathUtils. (probably should add float[], int[], long[] versions as well.) Then refactor

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

Al Chou wrote: [deletia]**2 * Improve numerical accuracy of Univariate and BivariateRegression statistical computations. Encapsulate basic double[] |-> double mean, variance, min, max computations using improved formulas and add these to MathUtils. (probably should add float[], int[], long[] ver

Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

--- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [deletia] > OK, long-winded disclaimer aside, here is how I see the task list ordered: > > * The RealMatrixImpl class is missing some key method implementations. The > critical thing is solution of linear systems. We need to implement a > numerically soun

[math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release

Here is a *proposed* ordering for the task list, with a little commentary added. One thing that I want to make *very* clear up front, is that I *never* intended the task list or the items listed in the scope section of the proposal to be definitive. All that is definitive are the guiding principl