Karel

 

Comments and Ratings by Karel		1 - 1 of 1
Updated	File	Comments	Rating
24 Mar 2009	inpaint_nans Interpolates (& extrapolates) NaN elements in a 2d array. Author: John D'Errico

Files Matching Karel's Watch List					View all 1 - 2 of 2
Updated		File	Tags	Downloads (last 30 days)	Comments	Rating
20 Aug 2007		Format Tick Labels Replace Tick Label with Specified Formattable Objects. Author: Alexander Hayes	annotation, axes, tick label, latex, figure, plot	286	22	4.86667 4.9 | 17 ratings
28 Jun 2006		inpaint_nans Interpolates (& extrapolates) NaN elements in a 2d array. Author: John D'Errico	inpainting, interpolation, holes, missing values image ..., missing values, image artifacts	216	57	5.0 5.0 | 56 ratings

Comments and Ratings Matching Karel's Watch List			1-5 of 101
Date	File	Comment by	Comments	Rating
04 Feb 2012	inpaint_nans Interpolates (& extrapolates) NaN elements in a 2d array.	John D'Errico	For the answer to your questions, you need to dive more deeply into the equations, and how they arise. The factor of 2 you found actually appears to be correct and consistent in context. If you prefer to make up any of a variety of arbitrary equations that make sense to you, of course you can get any result you like. The fact is, that will need to wait until you write your own code. I'm sorry, but sitting here arguing with someone who has not bothered to understand the underlying code that a factor of 2 should or should not belong seems silly to me. For some reason you seem to be trying to reverse engineer the underlying equations from a few coefficients, and are then deciding if they make sense to you, without actually expending the effort. It is the wrong direction to go when you are trying to understand a piece of software. Start from the beginning, not the end.	Comment only
04 Feb 2012	Format Tick Labels Replace Tick Label with Specified Formattable Objects.	Bret	Worked first time!	5
04 Feb 2012	inpaint_nans Interpolates (& extrapolates) NaN elements in a 2d array.	Willem-Jan de Goeij	Actually, I made a mistake. I've mixed two examples I was looking at. The average of 2 and 0 is of course 1. So I would pick 1 as a solution. What I see in your code is that the problem above is solved by the following set of equations: 2 x = 1+3 = 4 x = 10+6+4 - 4*5 = 0 The least squares solution for this set of equations, is indeed x=1.6. But why is the first equation multiplied by 2? If you keep the factor for x in both equations equal to one, you get x = (1+3)/2 = 2 x = 10+6+4-4*5 = 0 This gives x=1 as least squares solution.	Comment only
03 Feb 2012	inpaint_nans Interpolates (& extrapolates) NaN elements in a 2d array.	John D'Errico	Willem - Personally, I think that 1.57982346157884756363579013421232435 is a slightly better value, although I am willing to negotiate on the last few digits. My point is, you are apparently trying to second guess the value predicted by less than 10% on a very uncertain value. How many angels can fit on the head of a pin anyway? So feel perfectly free to pick whatever value you like there, when you write your own code. The value that was generated is the one consistent with the equations I specified, including the boundary conditions I chose. While those equations make some rational sense, I've won't claim that the predictions inpaint_nans makes are perfect, or that it will make all users blissfully happy. That would be impossible anyway, and I'm just too busy counting angels.	Comment only
03 Feb 2012	inpaint_nans Interpolates (& extrapolates) NaN elements in a 2d array.	Willem-Jan de Goeij	A = 1 4 7 NaN 5 10 3 6 11 Lets call the NaN value x. Your function gives x=1.6. I think x=1.5 is more logical, how about you? If we look at the first column, we have x=0.5*(1+3). ==> x=2 If we look at the 5, we have 5=0.25*(x+10+4+6). ==> x=0 If we average these values, we have x=1.5.	Comment only