On 2 April 2014 16:06, Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com wrote:
josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
pandas came later and thought ddof=1 is worth more than consistency.
Pandas is a data analysis package. NumPy is a numerical array package.
I think ddof=1 is justified for Pandas, for
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Daπid davidmen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 April 2014 16:06, Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com wrote:
josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
pandas came later and thought ddof=1 is worth more than consistency.
Pandas is a data analysis package. NumPy is a numerical
alex argri...@ncsu.edu wrote:
I don't have any opinion about this debate, but I love the
justification in that thread Any surprise that is created by the
different default should be mitigated by the fact that it's an
opportunity to learn something about what you are doing.
That is so true.
josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
pandas came later and thought ddof=1 is worth more than consistency.
Pandas is a data analysis package. NumPy is a numerical array package.
I think ddof=1 is justified for Pandas, for consistency with statistical
software (SPSS et al.)
For NumPy, there are many
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com wrote:
josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
pandas came later and thought ddof=1 is worth more than consistency.
Pandas is a data analysis package. NumPy is a numerical array package.
I think ddof=1 is justified for Pandas, for
Sturla
P.S. Personally I am not convinced unbiased is ever a valid argument, as
the biased estimator has smaller error. This is from experience in
marksmanship: I'd rather shoot a tight series with small systematic error
than scatter my bullets wildly but unbiased on the target. It is the
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Bago mrb...@gmail.com wrote:
Sturla
P.S. Personally I am not convinced unbiased is ever a valid argument, as
the biased estimator has smaller error. This is from experience in
marksmanship: I'd rather shoot a tight series with small systematic error
than
While most other Python applications (scipy, pandas) use for the calculation of
the standard deviation the default ddof=1 (i.e. they calculate the sample
standard deviation), the Numpy implementation uses the default ddof=0.
Personally I cannot think of many applications where it would be
Because np.mean() is ddof=0? (I mean effectively, not that it actually has
a parameter for that) There is consistency within the library, and I
certainly wouldn't want to have NaN all of the sudden coming from my calls
to mean() that I apply to an arbitrary non-empty array of values that
happened
Haslwanter Thomas thomas.haslwan...@fh-linz.at wrote:
Personally I cannot think of many applications where it would be desired
to calculate the standard deviation with ddof=0. In addition, I feel that
there should be consistency between standard modules such as numpy, scipy,
and pandas.
I agree; breaking code over this would be ridiculous. Also, I prefer the
zero default, despite the mean/std combo probably being more common.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.comwrote:
Haslwanter Thomas thomas.haslwan...@fh-linz.at wrote:
Personally I
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com wrote:
Haslwanter Thomas thomas.haslwan...@fh-linz.at wrote:
Personally I cannot think of many applications where it would be desired
to calculate the standard deviation with ddof=0. In addition, I feel that
there should be
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com
wrote:
Haslwanter Thomas thomas.haslwan...@fh-linz.at wrote:
Personally I cannot think of many applications where it would be desired
to calculate
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com
wrote:
Haslwanter Thomas thomas.haslwan...@fh-linz.at wrote:
Personally I cannot think of many applications where it would be desired
to calculate
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Ralf Gommers ralf.gomm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com
wrote:
Haslwanter Thomas thomas.haslwan...@fh-linz.at wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com
wrote:
Haslwanter Thomas thomas.haslwan...@fh-linz.at wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Ralf Gommers ralf.gomm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com
17 matches
Mail list logo
