many thanks for all the clarifications and for the declaration of intents
for fixing qf().
For the sake of completeness I stumbled upon the behaviour of qf when
preparing statistical tables with R to be put online for my students. I
remained a bit surprised in seeing how much the results vary acros
Thank you, Simone,
> "SG" == Simone Giannerini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:49:25 +0200 writes:
SG> Dear all, I found the following behaviour
>> rf(5,Inf,Inf)
SG> [1] 1 1 1 1 1
SG> but
>> qf(0.1,Inf,Inf)
SG> [1] NaN Warning messages: 1: In qf(
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Simone Giannerini wrote:
Dear all,
I found the following behaviour
rf(5,Inf,Inf)
[1] 1 1 1 1 1
but
qf(0.1,Inf,Inf)
[1] NaN
Warning messages:
1: In qf(0.1, Inf, Inf) : value out of range in 'lgamma'
2: In qf(p, df1, df2, lower.tail, log.p) : NaNs produced
Could do be
Dear all,
I found the following behaviour
> rf(5,Inf,Inf)
[1] 1 1 1 1 1
but
> qf(0.1,Inf,Inf)
[1] NaN
Warning messages:
1: In qf(0.1, Inf, Inf) : value out of range in 'lgamma'
2: In qf(p, df1, df2, lower.tail, log.p) : NaNs produced
incidentally,
> pf(1.01,Inf,Inf)
[1] 1
> pf(1
