-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 904
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
Listing 3.15: Typo in f(double d) function #1310
Comments
I'm not sure I understand this. @trevordblack ? Interestingly, |
Wait, what the heck is going on here? So, yeah. This "always returns the exact answer." Regardless of the function f. Given all this, why did we bother deriving the function f? |
For some reason I had a hard time grokking Benny's original inverse assertion, but here's the derivation: Also note that the original books had the (correct?) equation: |
I had to go reread this-- I am thinking the motivation in the text isn't super. In the never happens case where you know the integral's solution already you can sample it perfectly. We can do this in this artificial example. I want to sleep on this. Should we even have it? Steve I am confused about today's note-- I think it should be a times? But should we get rid of this example becuase it never happens in real life that exact sampling is possible? |
I had a hard time rewritting this. I don't remember exactly what I was trying to say, but it was something in the realm that But I never found the time to clean it up |
Benny Tsang writes:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: