[Yt-dev] sigma

david collins antpuncher at gmail.com
Wed Feb 4 13:35:28 PST 2009


> 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Yt-dev mailing list
> Yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>



More information about the yt-dev mailing list