Re: [Numpy-discussion] numarray-BUG in arr.maximum.reduce: negative axis returns "transpose"

[Sebastian H. <ha...@ms...>]

Hi,
Please consider this a bug report (I have never filed a bug with SF...)
I just don't want this falling through the cracks...
Again: na.maximum.reduce(arr,-3) returned the transpose of what it 
should have given ( na.maximum.reduce(arr,1) in my case - see below for 
details )

Thanks,
Sebastian haase


Sebastian Haase wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 March 2006 05:32, Paul Barrett wrote:
>> On 3/21/06, Sebastian Haase <ha...@ms...> wrote:
> <snip>
>> The above behavior for maximum.reduce looks consistent to me.
>>
>> The reduce axis for examples 1 and 2 above is 0, so maximum is comparing
>> arrays [[0 1] [2 3]] and [[4 5] [6 7]], which gives [[4 5] [6 7]].  Example
>> 3 is comparing arrays [[0 1] [4 5]] and [[2 3] [6 7]], giving [[2 3] [6
>> 7]].  And the last example is comparing arrays [[0 2] [4 6]] and [[1 3] [5
>> 7]], giving [[1 3] [5 7]].
>>
>> I think it depends on how you look at the shape of the array.
>>
>>  -- Paul
> Sorry
> I did the test wrong - 
>>>> na.maximum.reduce(q,2)
> [[1 3]
>  [5 7]]
>>>> na.maximum.reduce(q,-1)
> [[1 3]
>  [5 7]]
> So it obviously works as advertised.
> 
> The array where I noticed the transpose behaviour was really of shape 
> 32,15,521,512  and my command was  na.maximum.reduce(arr,-3) which "looked" 
> tranpose to what I got with na.maximum.reduce(arr,1).
> I using numarray for image analysis and the array might have been a memmap-ed 
> image file.  I'm just worried because I found an "accidental transpose bug" 
> on type conversion a few years back (see mailing list)...
> ( I forgot to say that I running Python 2.2 and numarray version '1.4.0' )
> 
> I just reran the test with python2.4  and arr=arr.copy() [which should give a 
> non-memmap version of arr]
> 
>>>> arrM  = na.maximum.reduce(arr,-3)
>>>> arrMt = na.transpose(arrM,(0,2,1))
>>>> arrM1= na.maximum.reduce(arr,1)
>>>> U.mmms(arrM1-arrMt)  # returns min,max,mean,stddev
> (0, 0, 0.0, 0.0)
> 
> So it definitely transposes the last two axes !  Maybe the bug shows up on 
> rank >=4  !? - which is the case Robert tested.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sebastian Haase
>