On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:56:34PM -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
So there's this patch I submitted:
http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/1402
Obviously not that high a priority in the grand scheme of things (it
adds a function to compute the log-determinant directly), but I don't
want to
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:52:10AM -0500, David Warde-Farley wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:56:34PM -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
So there's this patch I submitted:
http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/1402
Obviously not that high a priority in the grand scheme of things (it
adds a
David Warde-Farley wrote:
My first
instinct would be to look for logdet, but I would also not expect such
a function to return the log determinant *and* the sign of the
determinant.
What about having logadet for the (common) case where log |A| only is
needed, and having the more complex
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:23:54PM +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
David Warde-Farley wrote:
My first
instinct would be to look for logdet, but I would also not expect such
a function to return the log determinant *and* the sign of the
determinant.
What about having logadet for the
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:26:28AM +0100, Gael Varoquaux wrote:
I was more thinking of a 'return_sign=False' keyword argument.
My thoughts exactly.
David
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
Gael Varoquaux wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:23:54PM +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
David Warde-Farley wrote:
My first
instinct would be to look for logdet, but I would also not expect such
a function to return the log determinant *and* the sign of the
determinant.
What about having
So there's this patch I submitted:
http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/1402
Obviously not that high a priority in the grand scheme of things (it
adds a function to compute the log-determinant directly), but I don't
want to release a version of scikits.sparse with this functionality
while the
