Talk:Numeric error propagation: Difference between revisions
→Not sure how to do this: new section
(→What about correlations?: ignoring is ok for simple cases) |
(→Not sure how to do this: new section) |
||
Line 6:
:I don't want to further expand the task description with talk of correlations unless their omission really offends those in the know. (University was a few decades ago for me and I haven't made much use of the subject since). --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 03:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
::As long as the task doesn't require operations between correlated errors it doesn't make a difference. Otherwise each uncertainty would have to keep track of the error sources, which will become complicated real fast. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 03:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
== Not sure how to do this ==
Conceptually speaking: the new type is a number plus a function of a random variable.
But consider, for example: a*a. Here, both factors depend on the same random variable. We could express this particular example as a^2, because the same random variable is being used on both sides of the equation, but in the general case?
I am not seeing how to make this consistent, except by pushing this burden of analysis onto the programmer. But that approach seems at odds with implementing this as a type. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 15:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
| |||