On 27.08.2013 22:31, sebb wrote:
On 25 August 2013 16:22, wrote:
Author: tv
Date: Sun Aug 25 15:22:17 2013
New Revision: 1517307
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1517307
Log:
Update commons-parent POM to version 30
Why not update to CP32?
Yeah, why not. 30 was all my Eclipse repository index o
Hi Sebb,
On 27.08.2013 22:58, s...@apache.org wrote:
Author: sebb
Date: Tue Aug 27 20:58:00 2013
New Revision: 1517984
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1517984
Log:
IOException(String, Throwable) is Java 1.6+
Thanks for reviewing the code. I you see other issues, please jump in.
I'm planning to d
To define things precisely:
y = f(a,x) = |a|^x
Can we agree that:
df(a,x)/dx -> 0 when a->0 and x > 0 :[ NOTE: x > 0]
If this is acceptable, we get this very useful property that df (a,x)/dx is
defined and continuous for all a provided x>0 because we use the modulus of
a in the function definitio
Hi Ajo,
Le 28/08/2013 16:56, Ajo Fod a écrit :
> To define things precisely:
> y = f(a,x) = |a|^x
>
> Can we agree that:
> df(a,x)/dx -> 0 when a->0 and x > 0 :[ NOTE: x > 0]
Yes, of course, it is perfectly true.
>
> If this is acceptable, we get this very useful property that df (a,x)/dx is
>
Its a=0 that bothers me. x > 0 in my case.
In the code I use, the DerivativeStructure evaluates to NaN for a=0 when x
> 0 . I think we agree that in this condition the derivative should
evaluate to 0.
Perhaps I wrote something to mislead you on this detail.
-Ajo
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:36
Le 28/08/2013 19:59, Ajo Fod a écrit :
> Its a=0 that bothers me. x > 0 in my case.
Then everything should be OK with the current code, which reads:
final double[] function = new double[1 + order];
if (a == 0) {
if (operand[operandOffset] == 0) {
functi
Le 27/08/2013 20:23, Oliver Heger a écrit :
> Am 27.08.2013 15:57, schrieb Phil Steitz:
>> On 8/27/13 6:31 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>> It was mentioned the other day, so I thought I would propose a formal
>>> discussion. Is it time to let [math] "leave the nest"? I would doubt
>>> there are very
That works very well.
I missed the default value of 0 earlier
Thanks,
-Ajo
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 28/08/2013 19:59, Ajo Fod a écrit :
> > Its a=0 that bothers me. x > 0 in my case.
>
> Then everything should be OK with the current code, which reads:
>
>
BTW Luc. This derivatives structure is simply a godsent for big
optimization problems.
Cheers,
-Ajo.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Ajo Fod wrote:
> That works very well.
>
> I missed the default value of 0 earlier
>
> Thanks,
> -Ajo
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Luc Maisonobe wro
