octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Octave-maintainers Digest, Vol 79, Issue 14


From: Ed Meyer
Subject: Re: Octave-maintainers Digest, Vol 79, Issue 14
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:55:55 -0700



On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:30 AM, c. <address@hidden> wrote:

On 10 Oct 2012, at 20:14, Ed Meyer wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:10 AM, c. <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 10 Oct 2012, at 19:00, address@hidden wrote:
>
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:52:54 -0700
> > From: Ed Meyer <address@hidden>
> > To: "c." <address@hidden>
> > Cc: address@hidden, octave maintainers mailing list
> >       <address@hidden>
> > Subject: Re: [OctDev] Test failures due to tolerance in fftfilt.m
> > Message-ID:
> >       <address@hidden>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:11 AM, c. <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 10 Oct 2012, at 09:16, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I propose fixing this test by replacing the tolerance eps with something
> >>>> like 2*eps*norm(z)
> >>
> >> FYI this could be expressed as
> >>
> >> 2 * eps (z)
> >>
> >> from the help text for eps () :
> >>
> >> "Given a single argument X, return the distance between X and the next
> >> largest value"
> >>
> >> c.
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Carlos, I wasn't aware of this capability.  I thought it was just
> > what I needed until I
> > tried it on a vector, expecting something like eps(z) = eps*norm(z) but
> > what I get is eps(z(1)).
> > Is that the intended behavior?
>
> I don't think so, it is not compatible with Matlab:
>
> >> z = [1 2 3]
> z =
>      1     2     3
> >> eps (z)
> ans =
>    1.0e-15 *
>     0.2220    0.4441    0.4441
> >>
>
>
> I think this is a bug, could you please post a report?
> It should be quite easy to fix, but I am in a hurry now, I'll look at it tomorrow if no one does before ...
>
> > --
> > Ed Meyer
> c.
>
> I posted a bug report (37539) - I've looked at fixing it but it may be beyond my knowledge of octave.  It seems like
> the easiest way would be to recurse on each element.

I posted a changeset in the response to your bug report, could you please test it?
c.


I tested it and it looks good; thanks Carlo

--
Ed Meyer


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]