-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Behaviour of the evaluate function #140
Comments
Thanks @orkolorko for bringing this up and open the discussion. I agree that it may be counterintuitive and it requires documentation... as always, lack of time is the reason. Let me argue why this is designed the way it is. The polynomial part is a truncated Taylor series, which has terms of the form Does this explanation makes sense? |
Dear @lbenet , I think it makes sense and I think it is a good interpretation of the mathematical idea, I think what confused me the most is the tube plot in the documentation and the associated recipe:
plots a "tube" around the original function, but In Mioara's thesis Def. 2.1.3, and in the documentation of the package a Taylor model is but what is exposed by the interface is I think both the approaches work equally well but this needs clarifying; if you want I can try to write down a small note on this in the documentation and submit it as a pull request. |
Yes, please, help us with the documentation or whatever other improvement it is worth adding to the package! |
Dear all,
I have a question on the behavior of the
evaluate
function, or to be more precise, on the behavior of theiscontained
function.
At the moment it is defined as
this leads to, in my opinion, unexpected behavior: as an example if
tm
is a Taylor model centered at 5, with domain [4,6],then
tm(5)
fails the
iscontained
assertion, i.e., the evaluation fails on the expansion point.Minimum failing code:
If this is a design choice of the package I think this should be documented.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: