On 17 Oct 2014 02:38, "Benjamin Root" wrote:
>
> That isn't what I meant. Higher order doesn't "necessarily" mean more
accurate. The results simply have different properties. The user needs to
choose the differentiation order that they need. One interesting effect in
data assimilation/modeling is
I see this as a regression. We don't keep regressions around for backwards
compatibility, we fix them.
Ben
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Matthew Brett
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> > That isn't what I meant. Higher order doesn't "necessarily" mean
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Matthew Brett
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> > That isn't what I meant. Higher order doesn't "necessarily" mean more
> > accurate. The results simply have different properties. The user needs to
> > choose the differentia
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> That isn't what I meant. Higher order doesn't "necessarily" mean more
> accurate. The results simply have different properties. The user needs to
> choose the differentiation order that they need. One interesting effect in
> data assimil
That isn't what I meant. Higher order doesn't "necessarily" mean more
accurate. The results simply have different properties. The user needs to
choose the differentiation order that they need. One interesting effect in
data assimilation/modeling is that even-order differentiation can often
have det
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> It isn't really a question of accuracy. It breaks unit tests and
> reproducibility elsewhere. My vote is to revert to the old behavior in
> 1.9.1.
Why would one want the 2nd order differences at all, if they're not
more accurate? Should we j
It isn't really a question of accuracy. It breaks unit tests and
reproducibility elsewhere. My vote is to revert to the old behavior in
1.9.1.
Ben Root
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Ariel Rokem wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> On 14 Oct 2014 18:29, "Charles R Harris"
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Oct 14, 201
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 14 Oct 2014 18:29, "Charles R Harris"
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 4 Oct 2014 22:17, "Stéfan v
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2014 18:29, "Charles R Harris"
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4 Oct 2014 22:17, "Stéfan van der Walt" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Oct 4, 2014 10:14 PM, "Derek Homeie
On 14 Oct 2014 18:29, "Charles R Harris" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 4 Oct 2014 22:17, "Stéfan van der Walt" wrote:
>> >
>> > On Oct 4, 2014 10:14 PM, "Derek Homeier" <
de...@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > +1 for an order
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2014 22:17, "Stéfan van der Walt" wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 4, 2014 10:14 PM, "Derek Homeier" <
> de...@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 for an order=2 or maxorder=2 flag
> >
> > If you parameterize that flag, u
On 4 Oct 2014 22:17, "Stéfan van der Walt" wrote:
>
> On Oct 4, 2014 10:14 PM, "Derek Homeier" <
de...@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
> >
> > +1 for an order=2 or maxorder=2 flag
>
> If you parameterize that flag, users will want to change its value (above
two). Perhaps rather use a boolea
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Stéfan van der Walt
wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2014 10:14 PM, "Derek Homeier" <
> de...@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
> >
> > +1 for an order=2 or maxorder=2 flag
>
> If you parameterize that flag, users will want to change its value (above
> two). Perhaps rather
On Oct 4, 2014 10:14 PM, "Derek Homeier" <
de...@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
>
> +1 for an order=2 or maxorder=2 flag
If you parameterize that flag, users will want to change its value (above
two). Perhaps rather use a boolean flag such as "second_order" or
"high_order", unless it seems
Hi Ariel,
> I think that the docstring in 1.9 is fine (has the 1.9 result). The docs
> online (for all of numpy) are still on version 1.8, though.
>
> I think that enabling the old behavior might be useful, if only so that I can
> write code that behaves consistently across these two versions
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Derek Homeier <
de...@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2014, at 08:37 pm, Ariel Rokem wrote:
>
> > >>> import numpy as np
> > >>> np.__version__
> > '1.9.0'
> > >>> np.gradient(np.array([[1, 2, 6], [3, 4, 5]], dtype=np.float))
> > [array([[ 2., 2
On 4 Oct 2014, at 08:37 pm, Ariel Rokem wrote:
> >>> import numpy as np
> >>> np.__version__
> '1.9.0'
> >>> np.gradient(np.array([[1, 2, 6], [3, 4, 5]], dtype=np.float))
> [array([[ 2., 2., -1.],
>[ 2., 2., -1.]]), array([[-0.5, 2.5, 5.5],
>[ 1. , 1. , 1. ]])]
>
> On the o
Hi everyone,
>>> import numpy as np
>>> np.__version__
'1.9.0'
>>> np.gradient(np.array([[1, 2, 6], [3, 4, 5]], dtype=np.float))
[array([[ 2., 2., -1.],
[ 2., 2., -1.]]), array([[-0.5, 2.5, 5.5],
[ 1. , 1. , 1. ]])]
On the other hand:
>>> import numpy as np
>>> np.__v
19 matches
Mail list logo
