# Nested mean function with omitnan

5 Ansichten (letzte 30 Tage)
Stefan Th. am 16 Mär. 2023
Kommentiert: Stefan Th. am 16 Mär. 2023
Not sure if this behavior is intentional. When I have an array, let's say:
A=[1,NaN;3,4];
And I want to calculate the mean over the second dimension first, then the first one:
m=mean(A,[2,1],'omitnan');
The result is 2.66, which is clearly just (1+3+4)/3, and so it's the same as:
m=mean(A,'all','omitnan');
I'm aware that this is exactly what it says in the documentation, but it's still unexpected. What I would have expected would be the same as:
m=mean(mean(A,2,'omitnan'),1,'omitnan');
Which in this case gives the (imho correct) result of 2.25, so (1+(3+4)/2)/2
Am I missing something?
##### 2 KommentareKeine anzeigenKeine ausblenden
KSSV am 16 Mär. 2023
You think?
(1+(3+4)/2)/2 == (1+3+4)/3
ans = logical
0
Stefan Th. am 16 Mär. 2023
That's...my point

Melden Sie sich an, um zu kommentieren.

### Akzeptierte Antwort

Jan am 16 Mär. 2023
The problem is here: "What I would have expected would be the same as". This is not the way mean('omitnan') is working. So if you expect something else, you have to write the code to do it as you want it.
If it is explained in the documentation, there is no reason to expect something else. The behavior you expect would not match my intuition for [NaN, 1; NaN, 2].
##### 1 Kommentar-1 ältere Kommentare anzeigen-1 ältere Kommentare ausblenden
Stefan Th. am 16 Mär. 2023
Sure, it's in the documentation, so that's fine, I just think 'omitnan' could be misinterpreted in this case.
[NaN, 1; NaN, 2] would always lead to the same result, no matter in what order you calculate the mean or if you just take the mean of all values all together, but it's different in the case I mentioned.

Melden Sie sich an, um zu kommentieren.

### Kategorien

Mehr zu Logical finden Sie in Help Center und File Exchange

R2021b

### Community Treasure Hunt

Find the treasures in MATLAB Central and discover how the community can help you!

Start Hunting!

Translated by