[SciPy-Dev] cKDTree

[Pauli Virtanen]

Hi,

Thu, 08 Sep 2016 12:02:35 +0200, Sylvain Corlay kirjoitti:
> Just imagine: I have a new uniformly filling sequence, but no proof that
> it is pseudo-random, and I don't even know the discrepancy of the
> sequence,
> but a bunch of examples for which "it works"...  Well, I doubt that
> anyone would want to use it for Monte-Carlo simulation / cryptography
> etc...

Are you presenting this as a fair analogy to DE and the literature
about it?

> In any case, I find this question on the need of a scientific
> justification worthy to be answered in general - especially in the
> context of the discussions on scope and the 1.0 release.

Yes, justification that an approach works and that is regarded as useful 
is required. This is not really the place to do completely original 
research.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you would not 
generally recommend DE as a global optimization method, because there are 
superior choices? Or, are you saying it's essentially crock?

-- 
Pauli Virtanen