Thank you for your responses.
I presented a minimal example of the issue, but I should have explained
that this came up in the context of maximizing a log likelihood function
(with optim). I certainly agree that there would be no good reason for a
human to evaluate the function pnorm(-x, log.p=TR
I stumbled across this and I am wondering if this is unexpected behavior
or if I am missing something.
> pnorm(-1.0e+307, log.p=TRUE)
[1] -Inf
> pnorm(-1.0e+308, log.p=TRUE)
[1] NaN
Warning message:
In pnorm(q, mean, sd, lower.tail, log.p) : NaNs produced
> pnorm(-1.0e+309, log.p=TRUE)
[1] -Inf
I
