-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix zeros in hypot and norm #162
Conversation
ext/AccessorsLinearAlgebraExt.jl
Outdated
function set(arr, ::typeof(norm), val) | ||
omul = iszero(val) ? one(norm(arr)) : norm(arr) | ||
map(Base.Fix2(*, val / omul), arr) | ||
end |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
oneunit
instead? Or should we error? This seems to break lens laws.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What laws does it break?
Setting norm(x) = 0 should always work, including when norm(x) is already zero.
Changed to oneunit
, that's correct indeed!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
norm(set([0,0], norm, val)) == val
will not hold for nonzero val. So maybe we should error if iszero(norm(arr))
? Personally I want to get an error if I try to normalize the zero vector.
OTOH I suspect we have little violations like this in other places as well though. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, that point is unrelated to this PR: here, we are only changing what happens for @set norm(...) = 0
. Meanwhile, zero vector + non-zero norm scenario is already present in current Accessors:
julia> set([0,0], norm, 1)
2-element Vector{Float64}:
NaN
NaN
There definitely other cases of similar inequalities happening, eg:
julia> angle(set(0, angle, 0.5))
0.0
julia> o = @o filter(isodd, _)
julia> o(set([1,2,3], o, [4,6]))
Int64[]
Btw, this works and conceptually similar to the norm issue:
julia> set(0+0im, abs, 0.5)
0.5 + 0.0im
but is specific to complex values and their sign()
being defined even at zero.
We may think about putting a higher priority on strictly following optics laws and not defining "unlawful" optics. But we should also be careful to keep the Accessors flexibility: for example filter()
optic above is clearly useful even in cases that break that law. Setting norm of a zero vector is at a boundary imo: maybe throwing an exception is good enough... At least it returns invalid values (NaN
s) and not zeros :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jw3126 is the PR fine in the current state? Zero norm input and similar can be discussed separately, here we don't change them at all.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah it is fine sry
No description provided.