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
The current text indexes arrays like: data[0, 0], but the image indexes the array like data[0][0].
These methods are equivalent (AFAIK), but I could not find this stated in the text.
Method Calls
The current text calls functions from numpy to operate on data (numpy.max(data, axis=1)),
but the image calls the .max() method from data (data.max(axis=1)), and I did not find explicit mention of their equivalency in the text.
Thanks for all your work on these lessons, let me know if I'm missing something that makes this a non-issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @jdkent, thanks for pointing out the inconsistencies. I think in both cases, it would be desirable to update the images to match the text. Regarding the data.max vs. numpy.max function or method issue, previously the method was also used in the text, but a decision was made to consistently use functions over the methods. The image has not been updated to match since then. In the array indexing, I am not sure about why the image uses the data[0][0] syntax instead of data[0, 0], which is the syntax given in the episode text and numpy documentation, so it would be good to change to prevent confusion. Would you be able to submit a pull request to update the images to remedy the inconsistencies? Thank you!
Array Indexing
The current text indexes arrays like:
data[0, 0]
, but the image indexes the array likedata[0][0]
.These methods are equivalent (AFAIK), but I could not find this stated in the text.
Method Calls
The current text calls functions from
numpy
to operate ondata
(numpy.max(data, axis=1)
),but the image calls the
.max()
method fromdata
(data.max(axis=1)
), and I did not find explicit mention of their equivalency in the text.Thanks for all your work on these lessons, let me know if I'm missing something that makes this a non-issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: