On 02/20/2014 01:56 AM, André Walker-Loud walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2014, at 7:45 PM, André Walker-Loud walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
OK - I have not seen an email from Peter.
So I looked up the thread online, and see I did not receive half the emails on
this thread :O
My first
On 18 February 2014 17:59, Peter Otten __pete...@web.de wrote:
I don't know if the OP may use it, but there seems to be a version of minuit
that allows to override the function signature:
forced_parameters: tell Minuit not to do function signature detection and
use this argument instead.
On 02/19/2014 07:33 AM, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
At the least I don't understand why it needs both the argument names
and the number of arguments as independent quantities. Surely
len(names) would be the number of arguments... Or am I missing
something?
In the standard library, the attributes
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Oscar Benjamin
oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really understand why it works that way though.
Looking here
http://iminuit.github.io/iminuit/api.html#function-sig-label
This API is unusual, but co_argcount and co_varnames should be
available and
Hi Oscar,
Is there a benefit to this method vs a standard linear least squares?
It's the same except that you're using an analytic solution rather
than a black box solver.
OK. Interesting. I usually construct the analytic solution by just
differentiating the chi^2, which sets up, I am
Hi eryksun,
Indeed, I am using iminuit to interface with Minuit.
That is where I am learning to make my own classes to set up my functions to
pass into the minimizer. I also happened to get the string-hack to work (which
requires using global variables). Instead of just copying (since it
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:56 PM, André Walker-Loud
walksl...@gmail.com walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
I also happened to get the string-hack to work (which requires
using global variables).
Functions load unassigned names from the global/builtins scopes, so
there's no need to declare the g*
Hi eryksun,
Thanks - this is great.
Also, since you are chiming in, do you have an opinion in general about which
approach you prefer? The string hacking vs class method (for lack of better
way to describe them)?
Cheers,
Andre
On Feb 19, 2014, at 4:56 PM, eryksun eryk...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:59 PM, André Walker-Loud
walksl...@gmail.com walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, since you are chiming in, do you have an opinion in general about
which approach you prefer? The string hacking vs class method (for lack
of better way to describe them)?
I've never used
OK - I have not seen an email from Peter.
So I looked up the thread online, and see I did not receive half the emails on
this thread :O
My first inclination was to blame my mac mavericks mail gmail syncing problem.
but logging into gmail, I see no record of the emails there either.
I
On Feb 19, 2014, at 7:45 PM, André Walker-Loud walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
OK - I have not seen an email from Peter.
So I looked up the thread online, and see I did not receive half the emails
on this thread :O
My first inclination was to blame my mac mavericks mail gmail syncing
problem.
On 20/02/2014 00:56, André Walker-Loud walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2014, at 7:45 PM, André Walker-Loud walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
OK - I have not seen an email from Peter.
So I looked up the thread online, and see I did not receive half the emails on
this thread :O
My first
On 02/18/2014 12:02 AM, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
On 17 February 2014 22:15, André Walker-Loud walksl...@gmail.com
walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
This particular case is easily solved:
def f_lambda(x,pars):
return lambda x: poly(x,*pars)
You let the closure take care of pars and return a
On 02/17/2014 08:23 PM, André Walker-Loud walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello python tutors,
I am utilizing a 3rd party numerical minimization routine. This routine
requires an input function, which takes as arguments, only the variables with
which to solve for. But I don’t want to define all
On 18 February 2014 00:51, André Walker-Loud walksl...@gmail.com
walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW if you're trying to fit the coefficients of a polynomial then a
general purpose optimisation function is probably not what you want to
use. I would probably solve (in a least squares sense and after
Oscar Benjamin wrote:
On 17 February 2014 20:13, Peter Otten __pete...@web.de wrote:
André Walker-Loud walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
The 3rd party minimizer utilizes the .func_code.co_varnames and
.func_code.co_argcount to determine the name and number of variables to
minimize. eg.
Hello python tutors,
I am utilizing a 3rd party numerical minimization routine. This routine
requires an input function, which takes as arguments, only the variables with
which to solve for. But I don’t want to define all possible input functions,
in a giant switch, but rather, if I know I
On Feb 17, 2014 7:24 PM, quot;André Walker-Loud
lt;walksl...@gmail.comgt;quot;
walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
Question 1:
Is there a better way to accomplish (my hopefully clear) goals?
I'm not sure that there is given the constraints you're under from the
third party function.
Question 2:
In
André Walker-Loud walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello python tutors,
I am utilizing a 3rd party numerical minimization routine. This routine
requires an input function, which takes as arguments, only the variables
with which to solve for. But I don’t want to define all possible input
On 17 February 2014 20:13, Peter Otten __pete...@web.de wrote:
André Walker-Loud walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
The 3rd party minimizer utilizes the .func_code.co_varnames and
.func_code.co_argcount to determine the name and number of variables to
minimize. eg.
=
METHOD 2: use
Hi Oscar,
Let me clear up my description of one point - I don’t want to pick on the third
party software guys.
The right solution is to change the interface of the third party function.
It is poorly designed and should not be inspecting those function attributes
or it should at least
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 07:58:00PM +, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
The right solution is to change the interface of the third party
function. It is poorly designed and should not be inspecting those function
attributes or it should at least provide an option for you to provide that
information
Peter Otten __pete...@web.de Wrote in message:
André Walker-Loud walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello python tutors,
I am utilizing a 3rd party numerical minimization routine. This routine
requires an input function, which takes as arguments, only the variables
with which to solve for.
On 17 February 2014 21:18, André Walker-Loud walksl...@gmail.com
walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
What I am trying to avoid is having to write a special case for each order of
polynomial I want. I tried the following
def poly(x,pars):
val = 0.
for i,ci in enumerate(pars):
val
This particular case is easily solved:
def f_lambda(x,pars):
return lambda x: poly(x,*pars)
You let the closure take care of pars and return a function that takes
exactly one argument x.
Hi Oscar,
This is the opposite of what I am trying to do. In the example, x represents
the
On 17 February 2014 22:15, André Walker-Loud walksl...@gmail.com
walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
This particular case is easily solved:
def f_lambda(x,pars):
return lambda x: poly(x,*pars)
You let the closure take care of pars and return a function that takes
exactly one argument x.
Hi
On 17 February 2014 22:15, André Walker-Loud walksl...@gmail.com
walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
This particular case is easily solved:
def f_lambda(x,pars):
return lambda x: poly(x,*pars)
You let the closure take care of pars and return a function that takes
exactly one argument x.
Hi
Hi Oscar,
On Feb 17, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 February 2014 22:15, André Walker-Loud walksl...@gmail.com
walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
This particular case is easily solved:
def f_lambda(x,pars):
return lambda x: poly(x,*pars)
You let the
Hi Oscar,
On Feb 17, 2014, at 7:03 PM, Oscar Benjamin oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 February 2014 22:15, André Walker-Loud walksl...@gmail.com
walksl...@gmail.com wrote:
This particular case is easily solved:
def f_lambda(x,pars):
return lambda x: poly(x,*pars)
You let
29 matches
Mail list logo
