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
int_step(x) and step(x) return different values for 0.
The version of step(x) matches the BUGS definition and the standard definition of the Heaviside step function. Therefore, it should not be changed.
Changing int_step()'s behavior would be confusing, so instead it should be deprecated and replaced with a suggestion to replace existing uses of int_step(n) with the boolean expression (n >= 0), which evaluates to 1 if n >= 0 and 0 otherwise.
Current Version:
v2.17.0
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Comment by roualdes Tuesday Mar 27, 2018 at 23:29 GMT
I just submit 2 pull requests, one in stan-dev/stan#2501, which matches tests across int_step.stan and step.stan and one in stan-dev/math#805, in which the step function definitions were changed and tests were updated. Review when convenient, please. Thanks.
Issue by bob-carpenter
Thursday Nov 09, 2017 at 20:09 GMT
Originally opened as stan-dev/stan#2433
Summary:
int_step(x)
andstep(x)
return different values for 0.The version of
step(x)
matches the BUGS definition and the standard definition of the Heaviside step function. Therefore, it should not be changed.Changing
int_step()
's behavior would be confusing, so instead it should be deprecated and replaced with a suggestion to replace existing uses ofint_step(n)
with the boolean expression(n >= 0)
, which evaluates to 1 ifn >= 0
and 0 otherwise.Current Version:
v2.17.0
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: