On 11.10.2013, at 01:19, Julian Taylor jtaylor.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
Yeah, unless the current behaviour is actually broken or redundant in
some way, we're not going to switch from one perfectly good convention
to another perfectly good convention and break everyone's code in
It seems to me that Wolfram is following yet another path. From
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Autocorrelation.html and more importantly
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Cross-Correlation.html, equation (5):
z_mathworld[k] = sum_n conj(a[n]) * v[n+k]
= conj( sum_n a[n] * conj(v[n+k]) )
On 10.10.2013, at 19:27, David Goldsmith d.l.goldsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Bernhard Spinnler
bernhard.spinn...@gmx.net wrote:
Hi Richard,
Ah, I searched the list but didn't find those posts before?
I can easily imagine that correlation is defined
On 10.10.2013 21:31, Bernhard Spinnler wrote:
On 10.10.2013, at 19:27, David Goldsmith d.l.goldsm...@gmail.com
mailto:d.l.goldsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Bernhard Spinnler
bernhard.spinn...@gmx.net mailto:bernhard.spinn...@gmx.net wrote:
Hi Richard,
Hi Richard,
Ah, I searched the list but didn't find those posts before…
I can easily imagine that correlation is defined differently in different
disciplines. Both ways are correct and it's just a convention or definition. In
my field (Digital Communications, Digital Signal Processing) the
/Autocorrelation.html
DG
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 20:10:41 +0100
From: Richard Hattersley rhatters...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Numpy-discussion] Bug in numpy.correlate documentation
To: Discussion of Numerical Python numpy-discussion@scipy.org
Message-ID:
CAP=RS9k54vtNFHy9ppG=U09oEHwB
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Bernhard Spinnler
bernhard.spinn...@gmx.net wrote:
Hi Richard,
Ah, I searched the list but didn't find those posts before…
I can easily imagine that correlation is defined differently in different
disciplines. Both ways are correct and it's just a convention
Hi Bernard,
Looks like you're on to something - two other people have raised this
discrepancy before: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/2588.
Unfortunately, when it comes to resolving the discrepancy one of the
previous comments takes the opposite view. Namely, that the docstring is
correct
The numpy.correlate documentation says:
correlate(a, v) = z[k] = sum_n a[n] * conj(v[n+k])
In [1]: a = [1, 2]
In [2]: v = [2, 1j]
In [3]: z = correlate(a, v, 'full')
In [4]: z
Out[4]: array([ 0.-1.j, 2.-2.j, 4.+0.j])
However, according to the documentation, z should be
