started to add grid layout
added half of grid feature
horizontal gridding appears to be finished
both horizontal and vertical components of the grid are in place
fixed bugs with grid, now all of the galaxy is accounted for in the grid regions.  The number of active pixels in each grid region though is not equal however.
spruced up some code as well as fixed a few bugs that were giving me nan's in ai and at
By using multiple u values to test with I am seeing some points being selected and others being rejected.  The only issue at the moment is that this isn't removing points that are less than the spread, only random pixels.  I need to combine the grid together with this step to make things work appropriately.
added a function called grid_tst that will determine if the values in each grid are accecptable or not.  The output is a 2d array back to MCMC that will mark which pixels need to have a new x_co value generated.
switched the output of grid_test to show which pixels should be kept
cleaned some comments and going to find out if the grid is giving me grief, or the grid size is causing difficulty.
Have included nans in the grid section as well as placing a lower limit on the elements in the grid.  The only issue currently is that the plc values are over lapping instead of setting the arrays to different sizes.  Not too sure what is going on here, but it may be some sort of structure property in idl?
Fixed the issues with erronious cells being in the grid.  Ends up the arrays in an idl structure need to be the same length.  Saying it makes it sound incredibly obvious.
Tuned everything to run, so letting it run.
still not getting appropriate values.  Going to try and let the grid overlap be a declarative variable.  Installed a catch for if the grid and grid overlap do not agree.
repurposed gdr_calc to output a set of flags that will show where certain grid points need to change rather than generate new values.  The mask will then be used in creating at.
Grid has been implemented, and new values to use for steps was changed slightly.  The previous way was pushing values out way too far.  I think it might be wise to examine the transition probability, min_tst, to make sure this is being approximated properly.