Re: [MATH] Matrix indices

[Al Chou <ho...@yahoo.com>]

--- Phil Steitz <ph...@steitz.com> wrote:
> >> If we have not succeeded in keeping things simple, we are certainly
> >> open to improving documentation and / or providing wrappers or
> >> simplified interfaces.  If you have specific examples / suggestions
> >> for improvement, please share these.  We want to make the package as
> >> easy to use a possible, while still maintaining extensibility.
> > 
> > 
> > Well, I have indicated several things already, but all of them are put 
> > aside as "standard notation" or related arguments....
> 
> Nothing has been "put aside."  We make decisions by consensus.  You have 
> provided input and we are considering it.  To make sure I have it all 
> right, you have proposed four changes:
> 
> 1) Change the RealMatrix getEntry, getRow, getColumn methods to use 
> 0-based indexing.
> 
> 2) Change the name of "BivariateRegression" to "UnivariateRegression" (or 
> something else)
> 
> 3) Change Variance to be configurable to generate the population statistic.
> 
> 4) Combine the univariate and multivariate packages, since it is confusing 
> to separate statistics that focus on one variable and sometimes the word 
> "univariate" is used in the context of multivariate techniques (e.g. 
> "Univariate Anova").
> 
> My personal opinion is that none of these changes should be implemented, 
> but if consensus is that we should stop the release and make these 
> changes, then we will do that.  In the case of 3), I would strongly 
> suggest that if we really see this as necessary, we add a new statistic 
> (as we will with remedian) instead of trying to force one univariate to 
> compute two statistics (which runs counter to the design of the package).
> 
> Did I capture your suggestions correctly?  Is there anything else that you 
> find confusing or hard to use?
> 
> Thanks again for your feedback.
> 
> It would be great if other [math] committers could weigh in with simple 
> yes / no on each of the proposed changes above so that we can move forward 
> with the release.

Here are my votes on the above:

1) -1, keeping in mind that that's my personal bias; if real-world usage of
commons-math is mostly done by Java programmers who expect 0-based indexing and
they want it, then I am +1 for this change.
2) -0
3) +0
4) +0


Al

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

Re: [MATH] Matrix indices

[Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>]

From: "Al Chou" <ho...@yahoo.com>
> > 1) Change the RealMatrix getEntry, getRow, getColumn methods to use
> > 0-based indexing.

FWIW, if I were using this class, I would expect it to be 0-based.

I can't comment on the other points as I don't hav the maths background. (If
I needed one, I would probably search for it or ask, thus the name is less
interesting to me)

Sorry for the late input.

Stephen


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