Ah, I was confusing it with midrange. Thanks everybody! Learn something new every day. :) -E
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, John Myles White <[email protected] > wrote: > FWIW, the mean of the min and max is called the midrange. > > — John > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 8:17 AM, Spencer Russell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Elliot, > > The median isn't the mean of the min and max (though that was fun to say). > > Wikipedia says it well: > > "the median is the numerical value separating the higher half of a data > sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half. > The median of a finite list of numbers can be found by arranging all the > observations from lowest value to highest value and picking the middle one > (e.g., the median of {3, 3, 5, 9, 11} is 5). If there is an even number of > observations, then there is no single middle value; the median is then > usually defined to be the mean of the two middle values" > > peace, > s > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Ivar Nesje <[email protected]> wrote: > >> According to Julia median is defined as >> >> n = length(v) >> if isodd(n) >> return middle(select!(v,div(n+1,2))) >> else >> m = select!(v, div(n,2):div(n,2)+1) >> return middle(m[1], m[2]) >> end >> >> Ivar >> >> kl. 16:03:47 UTC+2 tirsdag 22. juli 2014 skrev Elliot Saba følgende: >>> >>> Reading your post, I'm a little confused Iain. You state: >>> >>> If we consider only packages with at least 1 package depending on them, >>> we find the median to be 3 dependent packages but the mean to be 10.5. This >>> is due to the 15 or so packages with more than 30 dependent packages. >>> >>> Now, I'm not the best at statistics, but isn't the median of *x* >>> defined as *(min(x) + max(x))/2*? If that is the case, (and assuming >>> that we don't have negative package dependency counts) I don't see how the >>> median can be 3, but the mean be 10.5. Perhaps you meant the mode was 3? >>> -E >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Iain Dunning <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hah, yeah, strangely relevant. >>>> PkgEval runs nightly (around 1am US Eastern), but obviously with so >>>> many people using Julia there is a lot of room for chaos inbetween runs. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 7:58:46 AM UTC-4, Tomas Lycken wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Look what my RSS reader just picked up! =) >>>>> >>>>> http://iaindunning.com/2014/pkg-deps.html >>>>> >>>>> // T >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 12:37:59 PM UTC+2, Tomas Lycken wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I still think the best way to resolve things if you should encounter >>>>>> problems, is to notify the maintainers. Most people in this community >>>>>> respond surprisingly fast =) >>>>>> >>>>>> There is some automated testing going on already, mainly thanks to >>>>>> [Iain Dunning](https://github.com/IainNZ)'s amazing work with >>>>>> PackageEvaluator and related tools. For example, if you click "more >>>>>> options" on pkg.julialang.org and then "Show package ecosystem >>>>>> statistics for Julia nightly...", you'll see some great data showing the >>>>>> current (and past) state of the entire ecosystem. You'll notice a few >>>>>> dips >>>>>> in the green curve, when changes somewhere suddenly broke a lot of stuff >>>>>> everywhere - and you'll also see that most of it was resolved in a matter >>>>>> of a few days. This happened because semi-automated issues were filed by >>>>>> the system against the packages when they broke, and maintainers were >>>>>> quick >>>>>> to fix whatever they needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the case of your problems - someone tagging a version without >>>>>> specifying a correct dependency - that will also be picked up by PkgEval, >>>>>> and the maintainer will be notified. However, since PkgEval only runs >>>>>> every >>>>>> now and then, and since quite a lot of users today "live on the edge" >>>>>> (and >>>>>> actively report issues when they find them) it's not uncommon that >>>>>> problems >>>>>> like this are picked up by users before PkgEval notices them. It's very >>>>>> likely that, as the ecosystem matures and stabilizes, this problem won't >>>>>> be >>>>>> a problem anymore... >>>>>> >>>>>> // T >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 11:47:32 AM UTC+2, Andreas Lobinger wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello colleagues, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 21, 2014 4:53:17 PM UTC+2, Tomas Lycken wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think this problem must be resolved by better practices among >>>>>>>> package maintainers: in short, the goal must be that as long as you >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> use (the latest) tagged versions of any packages, everything should >>>>>>>> Just >>>>>>>> Work (TM). That means, in short, that if a package maintainer adds >>>>>>>> functionality that depends on some specific addition to a different >>>>>>>> package, it is up to that package maintainer to make sure *not* to >>>>>>>> tag a new version until the dependency package has tagged one, in >>>>>>>> which the >>>>>>>> new behavior is included, so the dependency can be correctly specified. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... in an ideal world. All that we use around julia has a version >>>>>>> number less than 1.0 so hiccups are expected (at least by me). The >>>>>>> question >>>>>>> was rather how i can help myself and if there is some undocumented work >>>>>>> assumption. If i ever publish a package i'll try hard to follow your >>>>>>> advice. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This interdependency things showed up also in the great >>>>>>> julia-graphics thread on julia-dev. Maybe some automatic testing could >>>>>>> help? Maybe some dependency graph could be extracted out of the >>>>>>> METADATA? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wishing a happy day, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > >
