Skip to content
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

fix notation in laplace.jl docstring #838

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 6, 2019
Merged

fix notation in laplace.jl docstring #838

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 6, 2019

Conversation

JeffFessler
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@matbesancon
Copy link
Member

I'm fine to keep these conventions (better than being inconsistent), but a great place of knowledge uses b instead of beta

@JeffFessler
Copy link
Contributor Author

I am fine with b too - feel free to revert. I think I saw \beta in some places and \theta in others (and b in others) so I was just pursuing self-consistency.
I looked in several probability texts on my shelf and most of them write it in terms of \lambda = 1/b and one book used \alpha=1/b so there is no standard out there it seems. Cheers.

@matbesancon
Copy link
Member

Just waiting for another opinion and this is merged, thanks for the contribution!

@matbesancon
Copy link
Member

(Travis is failing while #836 not merged)

Copy link
Contributor

@jmxpearson jmxpearson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me.

@simonbyrne
Copy link
Member

Should it be sigma?

@matbesancon
Copy link
Member

matbesancon commented Mar 1, 2019

doesn't seem to be the convention for Laplace.
Std is sqrt(2)*b

@simonbyrne
Copy link
Member

we should be consistent for all location/scale families:

  • Cauchy
  • Logistic
  • SymTriangular
  • Biweight
  • Triweight
  • Epanechnikov
  • Cosine

@matbesancon
Copy link
Member

This part will be simpler for the construction with #823, but without it, it may be dangerous to require a parameter which is not the one usually taken

@simonbyrne
Copy link
Member

I’m no sure what you mean?

@JeffFessler
Copy link
Contributor Author

I just noticed that cauchy.jl has similar inconsistencies in its docstring.
Perhaps @simonbyrne is suggesting that all docstrings should be made more self consistent.
I agree with the goal of self consistency within each docstring, but I also agree with @matbesancon that trying to unify notation across all distributions could be problematic. For example, I see that the docstring for cauchy.jl uses \mu and \sigma but that is nonstandard and possibly misleading notation because Cauchy does not have a mean or variance.

@matbesancon
Copy link
Member

I'd be for keeping letters different from mu, sigma when the location and scale parameters do not represent mean, std directly

@matbesancon
Copy link
Member

restarted the build, merging as everything goes green

@matbesancon
Copy link
Member

@simonbyrne can you restart appveyor here?

@matbesancon matbesancon merged commit 3b649f5 into JuliaStats:master Mar 6, 2019
@JeffFessler JeffFessler deleted the patch-1 branch March 6, 2019 15:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants