Yes, you're right about this being a floating point issue. I guess I
wasn't clear enough that this was already understood. I'd have responded
earlier the response somehow missed my mailbox.
My question is rather whether there is a work around for correctly
displaying POSIXct values as character strings without modifying
print.POSIXct(). I've not been able to hit on one yet, though this seems
like a very simple problem to get past.
cur
> Jim Holtman wrote, on Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:51:53
>This is basically FAQ 7.31. WIth floating point number, you have about 15
> digits of significance, so if you look at the value:
>
>> as.numeric(as.POSIXct('2010-06-03 9:03:58.324'))
>> [1] 1275581038.3239998817
>
>when you get down to the milliseconds, this is about as much accuracy as
> you will get based on using POSIXct with dates around this century..
> ...
>On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Curt Seeliger
<Seeliger.Curt_at_epamail.epa.gov> wrote:
>> First, the reproducable example, showing how converting from character
to
>> POSIXct to character changes the milliseconds in the first time stamp
>> though not in the second:
>>
>> as.POSIXct('2010-06-03 9:03:58.324')
>> [1] "2010-06-03 09:03:58.323 PDT"
>>
>> as.POSIXct('2010-06-03 9:03:58.325')
>> [1] "2010-06-03 09:03:58.325 PDT"
>>
>> This seems to be due to truncation of the numeric value of the POSIX
>> object during conversion to character:
>>
>> as.numeric(as.POSIXct('2010-06-03 9:03:58.324'))
>> [1] 1275581038.3239998817
>>
>> Neither format() nor round() seem to be of assistance here. Anyone got
a
>> solution?
>> ...
>
--
Curt Seeliger, Data Ranger
Raytheon Information Services - Contractor to ORD
[email protected]
541/754-4638
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
