On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Oliver Soong wrote:
I'm having a very odd problem with system(wait = FALSE). I'm not
entirely sure whether it's a bug in R or a problem on our end. It's
related to a post a month or so ago in R-help which got no responses,
but I have a little more to add.
Well, the place
I get this (with R-2.12 and R-2.13, didn't try with earlier versions):
> max(c(NaN, NA))
[1] NA
> max(c(NA, NaN))
[1] NaN
I get the same thing with min().
The fact that the result of 'max(x)' or 'min(x)' depends on the order
of the elements in 'x' is surprising. It also seems to contradict the
On 11-02-23 06:12 PM, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> residuals() and $residuals are often very different: residuals() is
> generic, but even the default method is *not* simple extraction. Their
> values can be of different lengths: think about an lm fit with na.action
> = na.exclude. That is precisel
To me this is a common situation, especially to switch between two
languages. I solve it by separating the coding of values and their
labels. Values are coded numerically or as character, and their
labels are attached by a value.label attribute. When needed a
modified factor function transforms
I'm having a very odd problem with system(wait = FALSE). I'm not
entirely sure whether it's a bug in R or a problem on our end. It's
related to a post a month or so ago in R-help which got no responses,
but I have a little more to add.
This command works as expected (I use c:\tmp since c:\ isn't
residuals() and $residuals are often very different: residuals() is
generic, but even the default method is *not* simple extraction. Their
values can be of different lengths: think about an lm fit with
na.action = na.exclude. That is precisely the sort of thing the tests
in add.R were designe
I've recently been working with some California county-level data. The
counties can be referred to as either FIPS codes, eg F060102, friendly
names such as "Del Norte County", names without 'County' on the end,
names with 'CA' on the end ("Del Norte County, CA"). Different data
sets use slightly di
On Feb 23, 2011, at 21:38 , Ben Bolker wrote:
>
> Potentially, but I am personally much more interested in enabling
> drop1(), which seems to be a much more legitimate tool for testing terms
> in models than step(), which is so easy to abuse ...
Yes, although repeated use of drop1() easily lea
On 11-02-23 03:20 PM, Martin Maechler wrote:
>> Ben Bolker
>> on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:14:37 -0500 writes:
>
> > By changing three lines in drop1 from access based on $
> > to access based on standard accessor methods (terms() and
> > residuals()), it becomes *much* easier
> Ben Bolker
> on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:14:37 -0500 writes:
> By changing three lines in drop1 from access based on $
> to access based on standard accessor methods (terms() and
> residuals()), it becomes *much* easier to extend drop1 to
> work with other model types.
On 02/23/2011 12:09 PM, Simon Urbanek wrote:
Herve,
the answer is simple - it's as.character() - it has nothing to do with factor
or table.
as.character(x)
[1] "3.67" "3.67" "3.66" "3.67"
That's what you are passing to factor, so you get the c
Herve,
the answer is simple - it's as.character() - it has nothing to do with factor
or table.
> as.character(x)
[1] "3.67" "3.67" "3.66" "3.67"
That's what you are passing to factor, so you get the corresponding results.
Cheers,
Simon
On Feb
Hi,
When 'x' is a vector of doubles, it's not clear how 'factor(x)'
compares its values in order to determine the levels. For example,
here all the values in 'x' are "conceptually" the same:
x <- c(11/3,
2/3 + 4/3 + 5/3,
50 + 11/3 - 50,
7.1 - 103/30)
How
By changing three lines in drop1 from access based on $ to access
based on standard accessor methods (terms() and residuals()), it becomes
*much* easier to extend drop1 to work with other model types.
The use of $ rather than accessors in this context seems to be an
oversight rather than a desig
14 matches
Mail list logo
