Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed some behavior that seems inconsistent to me:
>
from numpy import divide, seterr
seterr(divide='ignore')
> {'over': 'raise', 'divide': 'raise', 'invalid': 'raise', 'under': 'raise'}
seterr()
> {'over': 'raise', 'divide': 'ignore', 'invalid': 'ra
Hi,
I noticed some behavior that seems inconsistent to me:
>>> from numpy import divide, seterr
>>> seterr(divide='ignore')
{'over': 'raise', 'divide': 'raise', 'invalid': 'raise', 'under': 'raise'}
>>> seterr()
{'over': 'raise', 'divide': 'ignore', 'invalid': 'raise', 'under': 'raise'}
>>> divid
On 08/03/07, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For normals this seems overkill as the same result can be achieved by an
> offset and scale, i.e., if r is an array of random numbers with mean 0 and
> sigma 1, then
>
> myrandomarray = (r*mysigma + mymean)
>
> easily achieves the same res
On 3/8/07, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Mahler wrote:
> On 3/8/07, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Robert thought this might relate to Travis' changes adding broadcasting
to
>> the random number generator. It does seem certain that generating small
>> arrays of r
Daniel Mahler wrote:
> On 3/8/07, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Robert thought this might relate to Travis' changes adding broadcasting to
>> the random number generator. It does seem certain that generating small
>> arrays of random numbers has a very high overhead.
>
> Does tha
On 3/8/07, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The slow down is probably related to this from a previous thread:
>
> In [46]: def test1() :
>: x = normal(0,1,1000)
>:
>
> In [47]: def test2() :
>: for i in range(1000) :
>: x = normal(0,1)
>
On 3/8/07, Matthew Brett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > My problem is not space, but time.
> > > I am creating a small array over and over,
> > > and this is turning out to be a bottleneck.
>
> How about making one large random number array and taking small views?
>
How is that different from:
On Mar 7, 2007, at 04:57 , Lars Bittrich wrote:
On Monday 05 March 2007 08:01, Steffen Loeck wrote:
Has there been any progress in solving this problem? I get the
same error
message and have no idea how to solve it.
I do not understand those code parts very well but I think the
values pas
