[SciPy-dev] scipy.stats: sf for symmetric distributions.
Wed Sep 16 16:27:14 CDT 2009
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:13 PM, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:53 PM, David Warde-Farley <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 16-Sep-09, at 3:17 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>> Did you check for which distributions this would apply?
>>> I remember there was some problem that pymvpa had with the r
>>> distribution because the numerical integration close to the lower
>>> bound didn't work.
>> I haven't gone through the list exhaustively but I'm fairly certain it
>> will make a positive difference for the t-distribution and the
>> standard normal, especially since these are used in statistical tests
>> where people care about their p-values.
> good, your changes are similar to what Per proposed in
> There might be a few more cases like these.
>> I just committed a fix for these two distributions, we can weigh the
>> worth of subclassing or not further (incidentally, this breaks two
>> ttest tests because they differ in the 17th decimal place, how sure
>> are you of those hard-coded numbers?).
> I got busy and just saw your follow up.
> If there is a request for higher than standard precision of
> floating point calculationss, then it should be a bug in the
> test. I guess, I missed adding decimal if it is in one of
> my tests.
> Which ttest test is it?
I saw the changes, Hooray we don't reject the null with
0.42264973081037421 instead of 0.42264973081037427 probability ;)
I think these tests should have used assert_almost_equal because of
the float. I might have been distracted because of the integer. And
these are some of my first tests in scipy, which might still be a bit
These tests are just regression tests (as it says on top), so any
improvement in numerical precision might require some
>> Scipy-dev mailing list
More information about the Scipy-dev