You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
srki [6:11 AM]
Yes, it is clear for the polynomial regression. But if we need for instance to feet a smoothing spline function (smooth.spline {stats} from R) which is not straightforward to compute, we would practically need to translate the code of smooth.spline() into PFA expression using available PFA functions, right?
pivarski [1:21 PM]
Yes. I didn't think of "canning" spline functions as named PFA callables, but that's not a bad idea. If I remember right, spline handle positions are something like a factor of three bigger or smaller than a tangent line to the curve at the control point. It's derivable, but maybe not fun to derive. That would be a good candidate addition to the "m." (math) module.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
From PFA.general Slack:
srki [6:11 AM]
Yes, it is clear for the polynomial regression. But if we need for instance to feet a smoothing spline function (smooth.spline {stats} from R) which is not straightforward to compute, we would practically need to translate the code of smooth.spline() into PFA expression using available PFA functions, right?
pivarski [1:21 PM]
Yes. I didn't think of "canning" spline functions as named PFA callables, but that's not a bad idea. If I remember right, spline handle positions are something like a factor of three bigger or smaller than a tangent line to the curve at the control point. It's derivable, but maybe not fun to derive. That would be a good candidate addition to the "m." (math) module.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: