Assuming no typos
Relationship between Pareto, Pareto(II)/Lomax and Generalized Pareto,GPD
>>> import sympy as sy
>>> x = sy.Symbol('x')
>>> k = sy.Symbol('k')
>>> c = sy.Symbol('c')
>>> a = sy.Symbol('a')
>>> m = sy.Symbol('m')
>>> mgpd = sy.Symbol('mgpd')
>>> gpd0 = (1 - c*x/k)**(1/c - 1)/k #
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Kevin Jacobs
wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>>
>> A third option would be just to silently fix the bug. In any case the
>> change should be mentioned noticeably in the release notes.
>>
>
> I see this as two bugs: the Lomax distri
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> A third option would be just to silently fix the bug. In any case the
> change should be mentioned noticeably in the release notes.
>
>
I see this as two bugs: the Lomax distribution was named incorrectly and the
Parato distribution was inc
Tue, 11 May 2010 00:23:52 -0700, T J wrote:
[clip]
> It seems reasonable that we might have to follow the deprecation route,
> but I'd be happier with a "faster" fix.
>
> 1.5
> - Provide numpy.random.lomax. Make numpy.random.pareto raise a
> DeprecationWarning and then call lomax.
>
> 2.0 (
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:23 AM, T J wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:37 PM, wrote:
> >
> > I went googling and found a new interpretation
> >
> > numpy.random.pareto is actually the Lomax distribution also known as
> Pareto 2,
> > Pareto (II) or Pareto Second Kind distribution
> >
>
> Great
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:37 PM, wrote:
>
> I went googling and found a new interpretation
>
> numpy.random.pareto is actually the Lomax distribution also known as Pareto 2,
> Pareto (II) or Pareto Second Kind distribution
>
Great!
>
> So, from this it looks like numpy.random does not have a Pa
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:14 PM, T J wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:49 AM, wrote:
>>
>> I think this is the same point, I was trying to make last year.
>>
>> Instead of renormalizing, my conclusion was the following,
>> (copied from the mailinglist August last year)
>>
>> """
>> my conclusion
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:14 AM, T J wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:49 AM, wrote:
> >
> > I think this is the same point, I was trying to make last year.
> >
> > Instead of renormalizing, my conclusion was the following,
> > (copied from the mailinglist August last year)
> >
> > """
> > my
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:49 AM, wrote:
>
> I think this is the same point, I was trying to make last year.
>
> Instead of renormalizing, my conclusion was the following,
> (copied from the mailinglist August last year)
>
> """
> my conclusion:
> -
> What numpy.random.pareto ac
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:49 AM, wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 1:01 AM, T J wrote:
> > The docstring for np.pareto says:
> >
> >This is a simplified version of the Generalized Pareto distribution
> >(available in SciPy), with the scale set to one and the location set
> to
> >zero. M
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 1:01 AM, T J wrote:
> The docstring for np.pareto says:
>
> This is a simplified version of the Generalized Pareto distribution
> (available in SciPy), with the scale set to one and the location set to
> zero. Most authors default the location to one.
>
> and also:
The docstring for np.pareto says:
This is a simplified version of the Generalized Pareto distribution
(available in SciPy), with the scale set to one and the location set to
zero. Most authors default the location to one.
and also:
The probability density for the Pareto distribut
12 matches
Mail list logo
