Dear Luc, Thanks for your super fast response. It worked ! Best Regards, Kedar On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Luc Maisonobe <[email protected]>wrote:
> Kedar Palsule a écrit : > > Hi Team, > > > > I cant figure out how to download the development version 2.1 of Apache > Math > > Commons. Alternatively, it would be good if I could figure out how to > > download the nightly build. > > The problem is that the official release, version 2.0, has a bug in a > part > > of the code that I need. > > > > Please let me knowif I can do either > > Since 2.1 is not released yet, you have to download the sources from the > subversion repository and build it yourself. > > Here is a way to do it from the command line in a linux environment: > > svn checkout http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/math/trunk > cd trunk > mvn package > > Luc > > > Best Regards, > > Kedar > > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:59 AM, kalpa rajadurai <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Hi Team, > >> > >> Thanks for your quick response. > >> > >> We would like to know, when this bug will be fixed and probably when > >> Commons > >> Math 2.1 Version would be released? As our project is dependent on your > >> API, > >> it would be highly appreciated if we get the fix or any kind of work > around > >> as soon as possible. > >> > >> Thanks in advance > >> > >> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Phil Steitz <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> kalpa rajadurai wrote: > >>>> Hi Team, > >>>> > >>>> We are working on a small project in designing a web based statistical > >>>> calculator, supporting certain distribution functions. > >>>> > >>>> we used method *cummulativeProbability(double x)* of *class > >>>> NormalDistributionImpl* for implementing Normal distribution function. > >>>> > >>>> We tried to cross check Apache API's result with that of OpenOffice > >> Calc > >>> and > >>>> Excel's result. In most of the cases, the results matched with each > >>> other. > >>>> But in certain rare cases, the cumulativeProbability() method returned > >> by > >>>> slightly different result when compared to the result returned by > >>> NORMDIST() > >>>> function of openoffice calc and Excel. > >>>> > >>>> Here goes the illustration of the case where we found the mismatch in > >>>> results: > >>>> > >>>> *Using Apache's API:* > >>>> NormalDistribution normDist = new NormalDistributionImpl(40,1.5) > >>>> ; > >>>> try{ > >>>> System.out.println("cummulative probability:: > >>>> "+normDist.cumulativeProbability(0.908789)); > >>>> } > >>>> catch(MathException e){ > >>>> e.printStackTrace(); > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> *Result:* > >>>> cummulative probability:: *-8.104628079763643E-15* > >>>> > >>>> *Using openoffice calc:* > >>>> Same input values given in openoffice calc using the formula: > >>>> *=NORMDIST(0.908789;40;1.5;1)* > >>>> > >>>> *Result:* > >>>> *0.0* > >>>> > >>>> *Using Microsoft Excel:* > >>>> Same input values given in excel using the formula: > >>>> *=NORMDIST(0.908789;40;1.5;1)* > >>>> > >>>> *Result:* > >>>> *5.0738E-150* > >>>> > >>>> *Different results:* > >>>> Apache -8.104628079763643E-15 > >>>> Openoffice 0.0 > >>>> Excel 5.0738E-150 > >>>> > >>>> We wish to know the following things, > >>>> 1.) What is the reason for this variation in results? > >>> The difference is due to different numeric algorithms used to > >>> approximate the cumulative probabilities - in particular how extreme > >>> values are handled. The probability in the example is very close to > >>> zero - all three agree on that. > >>> > >>>> 2.) Which result is more accurate? > >>> Excel is likely the best answer; though the only confirmation that I > >>> can give of that is that R gives the same answer and the correct > >>> answer is certainly positive. The worst answer is the one reported > >>> by commons-math. The value should not be negative. This is likely > >>> related to an open bug (MATH-301). Thank you for reporting this. > >>> > >>>> 3.) Is there any possibility to get the same results as Open Office or > >>> Excel > >>>> for this case, using Apache's API? > >>> Commons Math 2.1 will correct the bug mentioned above, so we will > >>> return either 0 or a positive value for this and other extreme tail > >>> probabilities. > >>> > >>> Thanks again for pointing out the discrepancy. > >>> > >>> Phil > >>> > >>>> Hope to receive reply from your team at the earliest as possible. > >>>> Thanks in Advance > >>>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Karpaga R > >> > >> "Did you always know that?" > >> "No, I didn't. But I believed" > >> ---Matrix III > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
