This is a repeat of PR#11903, and equally unreproducible.
We need someone who experiences the bug to find a patch.
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Full_Name: June Kim
> Version: 2.7.0
> OS: Windows XP SP3
> Submission from: (NULL) (220.117.151.228)
>
>
> R 2.7.0 and up(including 2
This is a repeat of PR#11903, and equally unreproducible.
We need someone who experiences the bug to find a patch.
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Full_Name: June Kim
Version: 2.7.0
OS: Windows XP SP3
Submission from: (NULL) (220.117.151.228)
R 2.7.0 and up(including 2.7.1) cras
There is nothing to reproduce here.
Small weights per se are not necessarily a problem, but a very large range
in weights might be, e.g. when computing weighted residuals. We need a
repoducible example for this 'bug' 'report' to be of any use (and we asked
for one in several places, including
This looks like a thoroughly screwed-up compilation system, not an R
problem. E.g.
/usr/include/limits.h(125): error #5: could not open source file
"limits.h"
configure:5465: icc -E -traditional-cpp -I/opt/intel/cce/10.1.015/include/
conftest.c
:11: warning: "__GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__" redefined
Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
Thanks for the examples. The specific problems was a typo, but there was
another on Windows (missing quotes).
This should work in R-patched and R-devel on Linux and Windows now.
Yes this works now. Thanks!
H.
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Herve Pages wrote:
Prof Brian Rip
This is about package 'lme4' and strictly speaking would not
belong to R-bugs.
But you have reported a bug indeed; thank you.
> "s" == susscorfa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:20:41 +0200 (CEST) writes:
s> Full_Name: susscorfa Version: 2.7.1 OS: ubuntu Submission
A delated reply: the problem on Windows was a missing set of quotes.
Herve Pages provided an example, and this should work (does for me) on
both Unix and Windows in R-patched and R-devel.
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Iago Mosqueira wrote:
Hello,
One of our packages contains C++ code that needs to be
Not a bug. None of these numbers are exactly representable in binary, so
you can't expect accuracy of better than machine epsilon.
Please don't report things that aren't bugs to r-bugs.
-thomas
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Full_Name: Tom Wang
Version: 2.6.2
OS: Li
Ok, please consider it as a bad call.
Thanks for your answers.
Best,
Mathieu
Prof Brian Ripley a écrit :
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008, Mathieu Ribatet wrote:
Dear list,
Here's a suggestion about the different optimization code. There are several
optimization procedures in the base package (optim,
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 8/8/2008 8:56 AM, Mathieu Ribatet wrote:
Dear list,
Here's a suggestion about the different optimization code. There are
several optimization procedures in the base package (optim, optimize,
nlm, nlminb, ..). However, the output of these functions are slightly
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:30 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Full_Name: Tom Wang
> Version: 2.6.2
> OS: Linux, Windows
> Submission from: (NULL) (61.230.6.228)
>
>
> I've found an instance:
>
> > a <- c(0.187,-0.019,0.074,-0.06,0.221,-0.079,0.12,0.079,-0.281,-0.242)
> > sum(a)
> [1] -2.428613e-17
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008, Mathieu Ribatet wrote:
Dear list,
Here's a suggestion about the different optimization code. There are several
optimization procedures in the base package (optim, optimize, nlm, nlminb,
..). However, the output of these functions are slightly different. For
instance,
On 8/8/2008 8:56 AM, Mathieu Ribatet wrote:
Dear list,
Here's a suggestion about the different optimization code. There are
several optimization procedures in the base package (optim, optimize,
nlm, nlminb, ..). However, the output of these functions are slightly
different. For instance,
Dear list,
Here's a suggestion about the different optimization code. There are
several optimization procedures in the base package (optim, optimize,
nlm, nlminb, ..). However, the output of these functions are slightly
different. For instance,
1. optim returns a list with arguments par
Full_Name: Tom Wang
Version: 2.6.2
OS: Linux, Windows
Submission from: (NULL) (61.230.6.228)
I've found an instance:
> a <- c(0.187,-0.019,0.074,-0.06,0.221,-0.079,0.12,0.079,-0.281,-0.242)
> sum(a)
[1] -2.428613e-17
The actual sum is 0 but it reports the wrong answer.
Maybe it is due to the c
15 matches
Mail list logo
