Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of phil.steitz@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.223.178 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <51ACA3DB.5040404@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 07:10:35 -0700
From: Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [math] Stochastic Process
References: 
 <CAJSjvwt22QzRR2bzzzQVLcg789KfkSV8LDaGXCmrJ_eddTdheA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJSjvwt22QzRR2bzzzQVLcg789KfkSV8LDaGXCmrJ_eddTdheA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 6/3/13 4:18 AM, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> to start working on the Monte Carlo engine (see MATH-463) I would like to
> break this thing up in multiple pieces. One thing that could be added
> independently is the concept of a stochastic process (e.g. Wiener,
> BrownianMotion, ...).

+1
>
> The code in the contribution is already a pretty good start, but the
> question would be where to put it. We do not yet have a stochastic base
> package, and random is also not such a good fit imho.
>
> I see various options:
>
>  - random.process: well it models a random process ...

random was originally intended to just house random data generation
stuff.  I would see stochastic processes as logical clients of the
generators in random, but I see the logic here.
>  - stochastic.process: downside of adding another top-level package

It think this is probably the best.  I tend to favor shallow and
wide over deep and narrow because it makes it easier to find things
and leads to less head-scratching about why things are where they
are.  What are the other stochastic.x that you have in mind?
>  - stat.process: well, statistics is a sub-group of stochastic so it would
> not be perfect

He he.  A probabilist, I assume :)  What you probably really mean is
probability.stochastic.process, probability.stat.*.  Too deep for me :)

Phil
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thomas
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org