commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: inverseCumAccuracy is probably not necessary
Date Tue, 06 Aug 2013 21:13:37 GMT
On 8/6/13 1:52 PM, Ajo Fod wrote:
> My question is if it is like one of those buttons on a calculator that no
> one has really ever used.

It is used.  I have used it myself.  We need to retain it.  For
convenience, we can add a constructor that omits it, but allows the
RandomGenerator to be provided.

Phil
>
> I've used the random number generator to get repetable paths, and the
> parameters, but never the inverseCum. So, how many people need the
> parameter at all?
>
> Cheers,
> -Ajo
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I wonder how many were waiting in silence to see if someone else would
>> speak up for a rename.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually I think by "function name" he was referring to the unfortunate
>>> English-language sexual innuendo incurred by the abbreviation of the word
>>> "cumulative" in the method name.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/13 10:00 AM, Konstantin Berlin wrote:
>>>>> Terrible function name also :)
>>>> Can you suggest a better name for this parameter?  It is meant to
>>>> indicate the proscribed accuracy of the inverse cumulative
>>>> probability.  By "function name" I assume you are talking about the
>>>> name of the constructor parameter / configuration option.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Ajo Fod <ajo.fod@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When does this become an issue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Ajo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/4/13 7:44 AM, Ajo Fod wrote:
>>>>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is the use of inverseCumAccuracy when people want to
>>> instantiate
>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> AbstractRealDistribution with a random generator?
>>>>>>>> org.apache.commons.math3.distribution.AbstractRealDistribution<
>> http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-math/apidocs/org/apache/commons/math3/distribution/AbstractRealDistribution.html
>>>>>>>> I personally only seem to need to instantiate these objects
with a
>>>>>>>> RandomGenerator but never with the inverseCumAccuracy set
to
>>> anything
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> DEFAULT_INVERSE_ABSOLUTE_ACCURACY.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Could we be better of with inverseCumAccuracy moved to another
>>>>>>> constructor?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good point.  We should take a careful look at which implementations
>>>>>>> actually use this parameter and remove it from constructors for
>>>>>>> those that don't.  I think some used to use it, but do not any
>>>>>>> longer - in particular the ones that no longer rely on the default
>>>>>>> inverse cum provided by AbstractRealDistribution.  The default
impl
>>>>>>> uses a solver to directly invert the cdf and that is what this
>>>>>>> parameter is used for.  For the ones that do use it, it would
also
>>>>>>> be convenient to provide constructors that include distribution
>>>>>>> parameters + random generator without this parameter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Ajo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Paul
>>


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


Mime
View raw message