You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
General comments:
Missing a “Readme”-file
Not able to run question 3 and question 6.a + 6.b
Remember docstrings in your functions (“””description “”””)
The most elegant solution in the project was:
Your visualizations of your solutions are very elegantly coded in the notebook. However, have a look at your figure for Q2 again.
The hardest section of code in the project to understand was:
The construction of your figures are difficult to follow. Moreover, I believe the figure in question 1 showing the set of Pareto improving allocations should rather be a “fan” of different allocations spanning from 0 to 1 on both axes, and the figure in question 6 should add the different allocations found in question 3-5 to that same figure.
It looks like your approach to calculate the pareto allocations and your definitions of utility and demand is correct. You may have to look at how you construct your Edgeworth box, instead of plotting it with a function in the py-file, try and define it step-by-step in the notebook.
This part of the project could be better documented:
It would be very helpful if the py-file contained explanations of each function you define, not just the steps along the way. It might also help yourself to see if you define the same things several times.
An idea for an improvement/clarification could be:
Your code is slightly confusing to read. Several of the variables are defined multiple times throughout the code, and the use of the py-file vs. the notebook is not very consistent. For example in question 4.a and 4.b, the demand and utility functions are already defined in the py-file, however they are both defined again in both 4.a and 4.b. In 4.b the functions are not used in the actual solution as the solution is found using a function from the py-file. It would be very helpful if the py-file only contained definitions of functions, and the contained the solutions using the defined functions.
An idea for an extension could be:
Before considering a new extension, I think you should take a look at your graphs one more time. Furthermore, try to be consistent in your use of the py-file.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
General comments:
Missing a “Readme”-file
Not able to run question 3 and question 6.a + 6.b
Remember docstrings in your functions (“””description “”””)
The most elegant solution in the project was:
Your visualizations of your solutions are very elegantly coded in the notebook. However, have a look at your figure for Q2 again.
The hardest section of code in the project to understand was:
The construction of your figures are difficult to follow. Moreover, I believe the figure in question 1 showing the set of Pareto improving allocations should rather be a “fan” of different allocations spanning from 0 to 1 on both axes, and the figure in question 6 should add the different allocations found in question 3-5 to that same figure.
It looks like your approach to calculate the pareto allocations and your definitions of utility and demand is correct. You may have to look at how you construct your Edgeworth box, instead of plotting it with a function in the py-file, try and define it step-by-step in the notebook.
This part of the project could be better documented:
It would be very helpful if the py-file contained explanations of each function you define, not just the steps along the way. It might also help yourself to see if you define the same things several times.
An idea for an improvement/clarification could be:
Your code is slightly confusing to read. Several of the variables are defined multiple times throughout the code, and the use of the py-file vs. the notebook is not very consistent. For example in question 4.a and 4.b, the demand and utility functions are already defined in the py-file, however they are both defined again in both 4.a and 4.b. In 4.b the functions are not used in the actual solution as the solution is found using a function from the py-file. It would be very helpful if the py-file only contained definitions of functions, and the contained the solutions using the defined functions.
An idea for an extension could be:
Before considering a new extension, I think you should take a look at your graphs one more time. Furthermore, try to be consistent in your use of the py-file.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: