[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: autocov and autocor
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
Re: autocov and autocor |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:30:25 -0400 |
On 28-Oct-2010, Rik wrote:
| I'd done some checking, but hadn't consolidated everything in my mind to
| write up. The short answer is that there is very little definitional
| certainty about how to calculate the cross-covariance (and hence the
| special case of the autocovariance).
OK.
| Although the bug poster was
| *emphatic* about the correct way to do things, in fact, it varies between
| academic fields and even when the same method is used there is a
| normalization factor which varies.
Yeah, well at this point, he's changed his opinion a bit. See his
latest update on the bug tracker.
| In this case, where there is no clear cut standard, my leaning is to follow
| Matlab; at least we can all be wrong together.
Yes, at least then programs will work the same way in both, which is
what I think most users expect.
| Still, I think overall
| these functions are too esoteric and should be removed from the
| core.
I'm OK with moving these functions and perhaps others that are not in
the Matlab core and that are not widely used to an external package.
Likewise, I think it migth also be a good idea to move most of the
functions in scripts/statistics to the Octave Forge statistics
package.
jwe