Re: [Numpy-discussion] Hamming etc. windows are wrong

2014-09-28 Thread Dave Cook
oking at the first and last points of the window; if they are > the same values, then the window is incorrect. > If you use signal.get_window(), the default is sym=False: def get_window(window, Nx, fftbins=True): # snip sym = not fftbins Dave Cook ___

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Products of small float32 values.

2013-10-02 Thread Dave Cook
e+38 > nexp = 8 min=-max > ----- > Thanks for that. Dave Cook ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[Numpy-discussion] Products of small float32 values.

2013-10-02 Thread Dave Cook
) I would expect float32 to be able to represent numbers with exponents as small as -127. Thanks, Dave Cook ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] cumsum much slower than simple loop?

2012-02-09 Thread Dave Cook
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Dave Cook wrote: > > Interesting. I should have mentioned that I'm using numpy 1.5.1 on 64-bit > Ubuntu 10.10. This transpose/compute/transpose trick did not work for me. > > Nor does it work under numpy 1.6.1 built with MKL under Windows 7

Re: [Numpy-discussion] cumsum much slower than simple loop?

2012-02-09 Thread Dave Cook
T == a.cumsum(0)).all() > Out[14]: True > > Interesting. I should have mentioned that I'm using numpy 1.5.1 on 64-bit Ubuntu 10.10. This transpose/compute/transpose trick did not work for me. In [27]: timeit a.T.cumsum(-1).T 10 loops, best of 3: 18.3 ms per loop Dave Cook ___

[Numpy-discussion] cumsum much slower than simple loop?

2012-02-09 Thread Dave Cook
[1]: from cumsumtest import * True True In [2]: timeit npcumsum(a) 100 loops, best of 3: 14.7 ms per loop In [3]: timeit addaccum(a) 100 loops, best of 3: 15.4 ms per loop In [4]: timeit loopcumsum(a) 100 loops, best of 3: 2.16 ms per loop Dave Cook ___