He wants to specify arguments to AIC that act like the "k" argument
and is thinking of faking it by, essentially, doing another round of
argument matching on ...
I think that if you define an S4 generic that only dispatches on the
first argument you may be able to do it for a specific method. On t
See:
http://finzi.psych.upenn.edu/R/Rhelp02a/archive/83547.html
On 12/13/06, Tamas K Papp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to find an elegant way to compute and store some
> frequently used matrices "on demand". The Matrix package already uses
> something like this for storing de
Ben Bolker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm trying to add arguments to the AIC method
> for some classes -- things like
> weights=TRUE to calculate AIC weights
> corr=TRUE, nobs to calculate AICc
> delta=TRUE to put a delta-AIC column in the output.
>
> The problem is that AIC is define
> "MM" == Martin Maechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:31:21 +0100 writes:
> "Vladimir" == Vladimir Dergachev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:03:21 -0500 writes:
Vladimir> On Wednesday 13 December 2006 6:01 am, Martin Maechler wrote:
>>
> "Vladimir" == Vladimir Dergachev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:03:21 -0500 writes:
Vladimir> On Wednesday 13 December 2006 6:01 am, Martin Maechler wrote:
>>
>> - Vladimir, have you verified your 'take2' against recent versions
>> of R-devel?
Vlad
I don't see how this can work, in S3 or S4. Callers of AIC are entitied
to expect it to behave as described on the help page, and so to be able to
pass objects called (e.g.) 'delta' and get back exactly the value
mentioned.
For what you seem to want to do, I think you need your own generic.
Marc Schwartz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Has anyone had a chance to look at this and either validate my finding
> or tell me that my brain has turned to mush?
>
> Either would be welcome... :-)
>
>
Scoping issues can turn anyones brain to mush! This sort of thing easily
happens with code ported from
I'm trying to add arguments to the AIC method
for some classes -- things like
weights=TRUE to calculate AIC weights
corr=TRUE, nobs to calculate AICc
delta=TRUE to put a delta-AIC column in the output.
The problem is that AIC is defined as
AIC(object, ..., k=2) where k is the constant
Hi all,
Has anyone had a chance to look at this and either validate my finding
or tell me that my brain has turned to mush?
Either would be welcome... :-)
Thanks,
Marc
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 13:53 -0600, Marc Schwartz wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> I was in the process of creating a function to
On 12/16/2006 12:25 PM, John Zedlewski wrote:
> Duncan--
> Ah, good point, clearly setting the tolerance to 0 is bad in that
> case. Also, my code has another problem when the max is negative -- it
> will set a negative tolerance! One good fix for both problems is the
> following: set the initial
Duncan--
Ah, good point, clearly setting the tolerance to 0 is bad in that
case. Also, my code has another problem when the max is negative -- it
will set a negative tolerance! One good fix for both problems is the
following: set the initial value of "large" to the first value in the
row instead o
Please don't report bugs that are already fixed in R-devel.
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Full_Name: Benjamin Tyner
> Version: 2.4.0
> OS: linux-gnu
> Submission from: (NULL) (71.98.75.54)
>
>
> As pointed out by Brian Ripley on R-devel, co.intervals does xr <- x[r + ii]
> with
Full_Name: Benjamin Tyner
Version: 2.4.0
OS: linux-gnu
Submission from: (NULL) (71.98.75.54)
As pointed out by Brian Ripley on R-devel, co.intervals does xr <- x[r + ii]
with a fractional r, leading to intervals that don't match the ones returned by
S-PLUS when overlap=0 or 0.5. For example,
x<-
On 12/15/2006 7:09 PM, John Zedlewski wrote:
> I've noticed that the max.col function with the default "random"
> option often gives unexpected results. For instance, in this test, it
> seems clear what the answer should be:
>
>> # second col should always be max
>> x1 = cbind(1:10, 2:11, -Inf)
>>
14 matches
Mail list logo