On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Daπid wrote:
>
> On 2 April 2014 16:06, Sturla Molden wrote:
>>
>> 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 fo
On 2 April 2014 16:06, Sturla Molden wrote:
> 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
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Bago 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
> 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
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Sturla Molden wrote:
> 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
> softwa
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 computational tasks whe
alex 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.
Sturla
_
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Sturla Molden
>>> wrote:
>>> > Haslwanter Thomas wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Personal
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Sturla Molden
>> wrote:
>> > Haslwanter Thomas wrote:
>> >
>> >> Personally I cannot think of many applications where it would be
>> >> de
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Sturla Molden
>> wrote:
>> > Haslwanter Thomas wrote:
>> >
>> >> Personally I cannot think of many applications where it would be
>> >> desir
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Sturla Molden
> wrote:
> > Haslwanter Thomas wrote:
> >
> >> Personally I cannot think of many applications where it would be desired
> >> to calculate the standard deviation with ddof=0. In addition, I fee
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Sturla Molden
> wrote:
> > Haslwanter Thomas wrote:
> >
> >> Personally I cannot think of many applications where it would be desired
> >> to calculate the standard deviation with ddof=0. In addition, I fe
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Sturla Molden wrote:
> Haslwanter Thomas 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 a
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 wrote:
> Haslwanter Thomas wrote:
>
> > Personally I cannot think of many applications where it would be d
Haslwanter Thomas 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.
ddof=0 is the maxiumum likel
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 t
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 des
17 matches
Mail list logo
