Honestly, I don’t remember why this difference, or who’s definition I was following when I wrote this post. But given that γ is a constant, you can set γ_{mine} = -1/γ_{theirs}, and get the same equation back.

I highly recommend that you write out the derivation for yourself, you’ll learn a lot from it, and you might discover typos in Kass’ paper or in my blog post. ðŸ™‚

]]>You’ve got: AXt + fx = (Xtâ€“Xt-1) / Î³.

But in the original paper in equation (17)

They’ve got: AXt + fx= -Î³(Xtâ€“Xt-1).

Could you please clarify me why the original paper have minus for the gamma value?

You need to install DIPimage: http://www.diplib.org/

]]>The matrix elements come from the two equations that are written just above it. The matrix elements at (0,0), (1,1), … (i,i) (i.e. the main diagonal) correspond to the component of the equation that multiplies *x*(*i*). The diagonals one to the right and left of the main diagonal correspond to the *x*(*i*+1) and *x*(*i*-1) components, etc.

Thanks for letting me know of the broken link. I’ve fixed it now, and uploaded the script here: http://www.crisluengo.net/wp-content/uploads/ccarea.m

]]>I am trying to understand how you computed the matrix A whose values are represented in the combinations of Î± and Î². For instance, how did you arrive at the A[0,0] value -2Î±-6Î²? I would highly appreciate your help. Thank you for your time!

]]>Nice to see a new blog post!

Reading the comments I wanted to put my 0.2 cents … in Petters hat. While your approach is really well thought through, i would say that from a humble user’s standpoint it seems somewhat confusing. I prefer the overly verbose struct approach. Using that approach I can hand over my code to someone else for review or simply come back to the code 6 months later and it’s clear what is happening.

Now, I should’ve prefaced this comment with the fact that I’m working in C# now (and loving it). The coding guidelines in C# fit better for writing novels rather than compact code ðŸ™‚

]]>