Néstor Espinoza

Hey @VincentBourrier (and any other person that sees this), It confused me to see no answer on this issue some days ago, and just wanted to let everyone know that...

Hey @MohammadEftekhar! Have had this in the backburner for a while, but will work on getting done during April. Will come back to this issue to let you know when...

Hi! We _could_, yes --- but I'm not sure philosophically we should. The reason is that the posterior parameters are supposed to be the parameters that you are actually constraining...

Hi @Jayshil! Thanks for this. Can you confirm that the way you propose to do multiprocesing is _the_ way to make this work? Also, to change this, would imply to...

I checked, and it seems this is a nested sampling issue, not a `juliet` one. Closing.

Tracking back to old bugs. @JonasKemmer --- is this still an issue or you solved it with your PR? A working example would be great to check. N.

Hi folks! We've already implemented in the latest version of `juliet` the possibility to fit different transit depths simultaneously (thanks so @Jayshil's efforts!). You would do so by doing something...

Hi @LucaNap, No, the implementation I described above fits depths on different instruments, which might have common transit parameters. As in: P_p1 normal 4.1,0.01 t0_p1 normal 2455242.,0.01 . . ....

As for the `r1` and `r2` parameters --- no, only `p` can be done like those.

And as for the question about outputting the transit duration, it is useful, but I prefer to leave that to the user for now :).