Sat Aug 1 10:29:59 CDT 2009
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Robert Kern<email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 20:11, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> That's better. It took me a while to understand the logic behind the
>> way the ceiling error is corrected. The same pattern is also followed
>> by the other discrete distributions that define a _ppf method. It is
>> cleaner then the epsilon correction, but takes longer to figure out
>> what it does.
>> To understand the logic more easily and to be DRY, it would be better
>> to replace the duplication of the _cdf method directly with a call to
>> For example, in changeset 4673, Robert, you changed the _cdf method to
>> use betainc instead of nbdtr, but not the _ppf method. Without the
>> code duplication, partial corrections could be more easily avoided.
>> Is there a reason not to call self._cdf instead?
> Nope. Go ahead.
> Robert Kern
> "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
> enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
> though it had an underlying truth."
> -- Umberto Eco
> Scipy-dev mailing list
for the record: dlaplace and boltzman also fail the roundtrip test
boltzmann (1.3999999999999999, 19)
[ 1. 2. 3. 3.]
[ 0. 1. 2. 3.]
False True False [ 0. 3.]
[-5. -4. -3. -2. -1. 1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.]
[-5. -4. -3. -2. -1. 0. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.]
More information about the Scipy-dev