For a while I have been getting that the complex tests fails on RHEL 6.
The specific issue has to do with tanh (see below for full output from
complex.Rout.fail).
This is both with the stock compiler (GCC 4.4.7) and a compiler supplied
through the conda project (GCC 4.8.5). The compiler supplied
As a quick fix, you can undefine HAVE_CTANH in complex.c, somewhere
after including config.h
An internal substitute, which is implemented inside complex.c, will be used.
Best
Tomas
On 05/04/2017 02:57 PM, Kasper Daniel Hansen wrote:
For a while I have been getting that the complex tests fa
Thanks.
I assume there is no way to control this via. environment variables or
configure settings? Obviously that would be great for something like this
which affects tests and seems to be a known problem for older C standard
libraries.
Best,
Kasper
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Tomas Kaliber
There is no way to control this at runtime.
We will probably have to add a configure test.
Best,
Tomas
On 05/04/2017 03:23 PM, Kasper Daniel Hansen wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> I assume there is no way to control this via. environment variables or
> configure settings? Obviously that would be great fo
Hallo,
I hope I am posting to the right place. I was advised to try this list by Ben
Bolker (https://twitter.com/bolkerb/status/859909918446497795). I also posted
this question to StackOverflow
(http://stackoverflow.com/questions/43771269/lm-gives-different-results-from-lm-ridgelambda-0).
I a
On 04/05/2017 10:28 AM, Nick Brown wrote:
Hallo,
I hope I am posting to the right place. I was advised to try this list by Ben
Bolker (https://twitter.com/bolkerb/status/859909918446497795). I also posted
this question to StackOverflow
(http://stackoverflow.com/questions/43771269/lm-gives-dif
Um, the link to StackOverflow does not seem to contain the same question. It
does contain a stern warning not to use the $coef component of lm.ridge...
Is it perhaps the case that x1 and x2 have already been scaled to have standard
deviation 1? In that case, x1*x2 won't be.
Also notice that SPS
Hi Nick,
I think that the problem here is your use of $coef to extract the coefficients
of the ridge regression. The help for lm.ridge states that coef is a "matrix of
coefficients, one row for each value of lambda. Note that these are not on the
original scale and are for use by the coef metho
Hi Simon,
Yes, if I uses coefficients() I get the same results for lm() and lm.ridge().
So that's consistent, at least.
Interestingly, the "wrong" number I get from lm.ridge()$coef agrees with the
value from SPSS to 5dp, which is an interesting coincidence if these numbers
have no particular
