<?xml version="1.0"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/rss.xsl"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>mathnetnumerics Discussions Rss Feed</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/Thread/List.aspx</link><description>mathnetnumerics Discussions Rss Description</description><item><title>New Post: Root solver</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/441943</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;There is none yet (except the unit tests) since this has not been released yet. See also the &lt;a href="https://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/444302" rel="nofollow"&gt;other thread&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>cdrnet</author><pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 21:22:37 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: Root solver 20130522092237P</guid></item><item><title>New Post: can I use this library to solve a cubic equation?</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/444302</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;The next release is supposed to support this. You can already test it in the current codebase though. Feedback on it would be welcome, as we can still change it completely until released. We do not yet provide specific polynomial root solvers but if you know a close enough range to a single root (you mentioned [0,1]) the generic root solvers may work as well to find real roots:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since you know the form, we can leverage its derivative 3at^2+2bt+c. Or we can use a variant that doesn't need the derivative. Both methods accept an optional accuracy parameter (default 10^-8):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;RealRoots.OfFunctionAndDerivative(t =&amp;gt; Evaluate.Polynomial(t,d,c,b,a), t =&amp;gt;  Evaluate.Polynomial(t,c,2*b,3*a), 0, 1);
RealRoots.OfFunction(t =&amp;gt; Evaluate.Polynomial(t,d,c,b,a), 0, 1);&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

Alternatively you can use the algorithms from the Algorithms namespace directly which also offer some more parameters. See the unit tests for &lt;a href="https://github.com/mathnet/mathnet-numerics/blob/master/src/UnitTests/RootFindingTests/BrentTest.cs" rel="nofollow"&gt;brent&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href="https://github.com/mathnet/mathnet-numerics/blob/master/src/UnitTests/RootFindingTests/NewtonRaphsonTest.cs" rel="nofollow"&gt;hybrid newton-raphson&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>cdrnet</author><pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 21:21:13 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: can I use this library to solve a cubic equation? 20130522092113P</guid></item><item><title>New Post: Is there a covariance method for 2 dataset?</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/438579</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;
&lt;div dir="ltr"&gt;&lt;br&gt;
thanks, my team has implemented this and will submit to the branch once we are a bit free.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;div&gt;
&lt;hr id="stopSpelling"&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>pharoah</author><pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 17:00:26 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: Is there a covariance method for 2 dataset? 20130521050026P</guid></item><item><title>New Post: can I use this library to solve a cubic equation?</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/444302</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;I have an equation of this form:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
0 = at^3+bt^2+ct+d&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know a, b, c, and d but need to find a valid real value of t ranged [0, 1]. Can this library solve this for me?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>brantheman</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 16:01:24 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: can I use this library to solve a cubic equation? 20130520040124P</guid></item><item><title>New Post: Root solver</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/441943</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;Where is the documentation or examples for this?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>brantheman</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 15:24:46 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: Root solver 20130520032446P</guid></item><item><title>New Post: Non-Mathematician needs help getting started!  (Please)</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/435457</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;I am assuming you know how to do a normal regression.&lt;br /&gt;
For a weighted regression, you would need to compute the correlation or covariance matrix in a weighted fashion and then do the regression .&lt;br /&gt;
 I did this in Matlab a long time ago, but have not had a need to do so in MathNet Numerics. If the rest is Greek to you this could be too, but it really is just a bunch of weighted sums. There might be higher level statistical libraries that can do weighted regression  already.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>Gregor959</author><pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 13:36:25 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: Non-Mathematician needs help getting started!  (Please) 20130519013625P</guid></item><item><title>New Post: Is there a covariance method for 2 dataset?</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/438579</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;You can use the Pearsons correlation to compute the elements of a correlation matrix:&lt;br /&gt;
I am sure this is not the fastest method and ignores the fact that the matrix could be better implemented with a square symmetric matrix but show how to get started&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
public static Matrix&amp;lt;double&amp;gt; Correl(Matrix&amp;lt;double&amp;gt; x)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    {
        Matrix&amp;lt;double&amp;gt; correlM = new DenseMatrix(x.RowCount, x.RowCount);

        //off diagonal elements
        foreach (var rowx in x.RowEnumerator())
        {
            foreach (var rowy in x.RowEnumerator())
            {
                if (rowy.Item1 &amp;gt; rowx.Item1)
                {
                    correlM[rowx.Item1, rowy.Item1] = MathNet.Numerics.Statistics.Correlation.Pearson(rowx.Item2, rowy.Item2);
                }
                if (rowy.Item1 &amp;lt; rowx.Item1)
                {
                    correlM[rowx.Item1, rowy.Item1] = correlM[rowy.Item1, rowx.Item1];
                }

            }
        }
        //Diagonal elements
        foreach (var rowx in x.RowEnumerator())
        {
            correlM[rowx.Item1, rowx.Item1] = MathNet.Numerics.Statistics.Correlation.Pearson(rowx.Item2, rowx.Item2);
        }

        return correlM;
    }&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>Gregor959</author><pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 12:26:49 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: Is there a covariance method for 2 dataset? 20130519122649P</guid></item><item><title>New Post: Lognormal sampling</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/443194</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;See also &lt;a href="http://numerics.mathdotnet.com/api/MathNet.Numerics.Distributions/LogNormal.htm" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://numerics.mathdotnet.com/api/MathNet.Numerics.Distributions/LogNormal.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>cdrnet</author><pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 08:15:09 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: Lognormal sampling 20130510081509A</guid></item><item><title>New Post: Lognormal sampling</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/443194</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;From a first look it seems it is working correctly. The mu/sigma parameters do &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; specify the mean and standard deviation of the variable (these are called &amp;quot;Mean&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;StdDev&amp;quot;), but of the natural logarithm of the variable (thus confirming your observation in your second post). This is consistent with &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-normal_distribution" rel="nofollow"&gt;wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;, although admittedly quite confusing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>cdrnet</author><pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 08:11:20 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: Lognormal sampling 20130510081120A</guid></item><item><title>New Post: Lognormal sampling</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/443194</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;It looks like I get the correct result if I do this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;
double sample = Math.Log(LogNormal.Sample(aRandomGenerator, 0.000001, 0.000001));&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Why's that?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>mcmillab</author><pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 02:52:17 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: Lognormal sampling 20130510025217A</guid></item><item><title>New Post: Lognormal sampling</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/443194</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;I'm trying to generate lognormal samples.&lt;br /&gt;
When I do something like this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;
double sample = LogNormal.Sample(aRandomGenerator, 0.000001, 0.000001)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
I get numbers back close to 1, but I was expected them to be distributed around my mean (0.000001).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What am I doing wrong?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>mcmillab</author><pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 02:04:45 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: Lognormal sampling 20130510020445A</guid></item><item><title>New Post: Root solver</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/441943</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;That worked nicely, I've pulled it to mainline already.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks,&lt;br /&gt;
Christoph&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>cdrnet</author><pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 17:53:42 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: Root solver 20130501055342P</guid></item><item><title>New Post: Root solver</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/441943</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;I created a fork, and pushed changes there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href="https://git01.codeplex.com/forks/candychiu/rootsolver" rel="nofollow"&gt;https://git01.codeplex.com/forks/candychiu/rootsolver&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Internally I used MbUnit for unit testing.  The simple test case needs modification and extension.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>candychiu</author><pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:29:49 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: Root solver 20130430082949P</guid></item><item><title>New Post: Root solver</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/441943</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;Hi Candy,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Certainly, that would be welcome. How can we get hold of your work?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks,&lt;br /&gt;
Christoph&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>cdrnet</author><pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:30:54 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: Root solver 20130429013054P</guid></item><item><title>New Post: Root solver</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/441943</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;Hi,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I added the Brent root solver to my copy of the source code.  Would you add it to the repository for others to use?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Candy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>candychiu</author><pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:33:30 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: Root solver 20130429123330P</guid></item><item><title>New Post: API Reference out-of-date</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/441598</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;I've fixed docu and uploaded a new build. It should now include inherited members, list static methods separately and warn prominently on anything that has been marked as obsolete.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>cdrnet</author><pubDate>Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:39:20 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: API Reference out-of-date 20130427053920P</guid></item><item><title>New Post: API Reference out-of-date</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/441598</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;Yes, I've noticed that as well. It also doesn't flag obsolete members yet which can be confusing (e.g. DenseMatrix.Data vs .Values). I'm working on a fix within docu, not too hard but needs some refactoring first (wish it was written in F#...).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I used to kind of hate doxygen-style docs 6-7 years ago when I last tried, but I guess it has improved since (or can be configured accordingly) and is worth a new trial :)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>cdrnet</author><pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:08:10 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: API Reference out-of-date 20130426080810P</guid></item><item><title>New Post: API Reference out-of-date</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/441598</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;So it appears that docu doesn't put show documentation for inherited members -- it would be handy if it included their documentation (as doxygen can be instructed to do) or at least linked to their documentation (as doxygen otherwise does).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, looking at &lt;a href="http://numerics.mathdotnet.com/api/MathNet.Numerics.LinearAlgebra.Double/DenseMatrix.htm#Add" rel="nofollow"&gt;DenseMatrix.Add&lt;/a&gt; you wouldn't know that there actually is documentation for it as &lt;a href="http://numerics.mathdotnet.com/api/MathNet.Numerics.LinearAlgebra.Generic/Matrix%601.htm#Add" rel="nofollow"&gt;Matrix&amp;lt;T&amp;gt;.Add&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe I can convince you to switch to doxygen? :P  The results are less spartan (perhaps even bloated), but they're also quite a bit more useable in my opinion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>creinke</author><pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:12:58 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: API Reference out-of-date 20130426061258P</guid></item><item><title>New Post: API Reference out-of-date</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/441598</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;Indeed, I've just regenerated it for v2.5.0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also fixed a bug in docu (some open source doc generation engine we use) that caused a lot of methods to be omitted previously, so the reference should be much more complete now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks,&lt;br /&gt;
Christoph&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>cdrnet</author><pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:31:17 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: API Reference out-of-date 20130426123117P</guid></item><item><title>New Post: API Reference out-of-date</title><link>http://mathnetnumerics.codeplex.com/discussions/441598</link><description>&lt;div style="line-height: normal;"&gt;The &lt;a href="numerics.mathdotnet.com/api/" rel="nofollow"&gt;API Reference&lt;/a&gt; is terribly out of date -- based on 2.1.2.21 when the current version is 2.5.0.27.  I say terribly because the source-embedded documentation has apparently gotten much better over that time!  Why not update it where people look for it?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>creinke</author><pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:36:23 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">New Post: API Reference out-of-date 20130425073623P</guid></item></channel></rss>