Okay, sounds good. I'll add it in tonight or tomorrow. On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 1:35 PM, david collins <antpuncher@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, nuts. Okay, I'll take a look at this later today or tomorrow. Maybe we should make a special "calculate error" function?
Meh. I vote do the simple way, and if it looks like the person-hours in savings to increase the speed are worth the person-hours cost in figuring out a faster way (keeping in mind that two of us are trying to graduate) then do it. It's at *best* a factor of 2 in cost for something that's been pretty quick for me, so I don't see it as worth your time to speed it up. It's not an increase of accuracy to do sum( w_i * ( v_i - M )^2) / sum(w_i), I don't think, since you do the difference in the square.
d.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:47 PM, david collins <antpuncher@gmail.com> wrote:
I vote do it the 2 pass way. I've been looking at this this morning, and what I keep coming up with (though I don't have a full solution) is that you're going to need to compute partial sums of the weight field. I think this pass through the weight field almost outweighs the advantage of using this single pass approach.
d.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:23 AM, david collins <antpuncher@gmail.com> wrote:
so we'll need to weight the values to calculate std-dev, yes?
I think I answered the wrong question. Ignore my first post, the UT matrix is irrelevant.
d.
_______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ Yt-dev mailing list Yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org