On 03/17/2012 12:53 AM, Jeff Newmiller wrote:
for(indx in 1:(length(bin.05)-3))
>>> if ((bin.05[indx] == test.pattern[1])&& (bin.05[indx+1] ==
>>> test.pattern[2])&& (bin.05[indx+2] == test.pattern[3]))
>>> return.values$count.match.pattern[1] =
>>> return.values$count.match.pattern[1] + 1
Ok, sorry for not understanding the first time, here is my example with
the type of data I am working with in this simulation
test.pattern <- c("T", "T", "O")
bin.05 cut(runif(10000000), breaks=c(-0.01,0.05,1), labels=c("T",
"O"))
for(indx in 1:(length(bin.05)-3))
if (
(bin.05[indx] == test.pattern[1]) &&
(bin.05[indx+1] == test.pattern[2]) &&
(bin.05[indx+2] == test.pattern[3]))
count <- count + 1
Now the approach provided by William Dunlop sped up my simulation
tremendously;
indx <- seq_len(length(bin.05)-3)
count <- sum((bin.05[indx] == test.pattern[1]) &
(bin.05[indx+1] == test.pattern[2]) &
(bin.05[indx+2] == test.pattern[3]))
My current question is there a way to perform the same count, but with
an arbitrary size pattern. In other words, instead of a fixed pattern
size of 3, could I have a pattern size of 4, 5, 6, ..., 30 any of which
that could be run without changing the script?
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org 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.
