search for: 0.0012

Target: FreeBSD 7.0-RC1 on amd64. autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: x86_64-unknown-freebsd7.0 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Target: amd64-undermydesk-freebsd Configured with: FreeBSD/amd64 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD] [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release

> On 22 Mar 2019, at 18:07 , Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: > > gives (on Linux R 3.5.3, Fedora 28) > > d=10 d=7 d=2 d=1 d=0 > [1,] "123456" "123456" "123456" "1e+05" "%#4.0-1e" > [2,] "12345.6" "12345.6" "12346"

Did something change with exception handling recently? A bunch of lit bots are showing slower compile times for many tests. Ciao, Duncan. On 20/06/12 07:53, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > lab-mini-03__O0-g__clang_DEV__x86_64 test results > <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283?compare_to=1278&baseline=999> > > Run Order Start Time Duration >

Nothing that I'm aware of has changed with EH. Is it possible to bisect the problem? -bw On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Did something change with exception handling recently? A bunch of lit bots are > showing slower compile times for many tests. > > Ciao, Duncan. > > On 20/06/12 07:53, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu

Hi Bill, > Nothing that I'm aware of has changed with EH. Is it possible to bisect the problem? I don't see any relevant LLVM changes, so I guess clang C++ compilation slowed down due to some clang changes. I'm not going to investigate this. Ciao, Duncan. > > -bw > > On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > >> Did

Dear R users, I am using v2.0.1 on Windows 2000. I have read a ".dat" file with several vectors, including 2 factors (2 levels x 3 levels), and a vector of responses, into R. There are no unique row names. When I try plot(x,y) or lm(y~x) the following error is returned: Error in model.frame(formula, rownames,...extranames: variable lengths differ What am I doing wrong? I am a

On Jul 5, 2012, at 1:33 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Bill, > >> Nothing that I'm aware of has changed with EH. Is it possible to bisect the problem? > > I don't see any relevant LLVM changes, so I guess clang C++ compilation slowed > down due to some clang changes. I'm not going to investigate this. > Crumbs. John, Do you know of anything that went into

Using the small reproducible example below, I'd like to know if one can somehow use the matrix "sig" (defined below) to add a black outline (with lwd=2) to all pixels with a corresponding value of 1 in the matrix 'sig'? So for example, in the ggplot2 plot below, the pixel located at [1,3] would be outlined by a black square since the value at sig[1,3] == 1. This is my first

LLVMers, The 2.2 prerelease is now available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.2/ If anyone can help test this release, I ask that you do the following: 1) Build llvm and llvm-gcc (or use a binary). You may build release (default) or debug. You may pick llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, or both. 2) Run 'make check'. 3) In llvm-test, run 'make TEST=nightly report'. 4) When

Hi I noticed a small inconsistency when using sum() vs cumsum() I have a char-based series > tryjpy$long [1] "0.0022" "-0.0002" "-0.0149" "-0.0023" "-0.0342" "-0.0245" "-0.0022" [8] "0.0003" "-0.0001" "-0.0004" "-0.0036" "-0.001" "-0.0011"

On Aug 6, 2019, at 7:04 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 19:49, Warren Young <warren at etr-usa.com> wrote: > >> On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:25 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 13:17, Jerry Geis <jerry.geis at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, All. I have a logistic regression model that I have run. The question came up: which of these regressors is more important than another? (I'm using Design) Logistic Regression Model lrm(formula = iconicgesture ~ ST + SSP + magnitude + Condition + Expertise, data = d) Coef S.E. Wald Z P Intercept -3.2688 0.2854 -11.45 0.0000 ST 2.0871 0.2730 7.64

In the documentation of 'pairs'(package:graphics), within the last example, it reads: format(c(r, 0.123456789), digits=3)[1] Why not simple use: format(r, digits=3)? What is the difference? Thanks. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/a-quick-question-about-%22format%28%29%22-tf4476762.html#a12764903 Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Hi guys... I have problem with this excersise... Consider the pressure data frame again. (a) Plot pressure against temperature, and use the following command to pass a curve through these data: > curve((0.168 + 0.007*x)?(20/3), from=0, to=400, add=TRUE) (b) Now, apply the power transformation y3/20 to the pressure data values. Plot these transformed values against temperature. Is a linear

FWIW, it doesn't seem to be happening on Mac OS: > format(2^30, digits=0) [1] "1.e+09" > prettyNum(12345.6, digits=0) [1] "1.e+04" A glibc misfeature? -pd > On 22 Mar 2019, at 10:10 , Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: > > Thank you, Robert for raising this here ! > >>>>>> Robert McGehee

Hi Eric, you can use an annotate-layer, eg ind<-which(sig>0,arr.ind = T) ggplot(m1.melted, aes(x = Month, y = Site, fill = Concentration), autoscale = FALSE, zmin = -1 * zmax1, zmax = zmax1) + geom_tile() + coord_equal() + scale_fill_gradient2(low = "darkred", mid = "white", high = "darkblue",

#is there a way to get NA in the table of descriptive statistics instead of the function stopping Thank you in advance #data x.f <- structure(list(Site = structure(c(9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L), .Label = c("BC", "HC", "RM119", "RM148", "RM179", "RM185",

>>>>> Tomas Kalibera >>>>> on Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:29:05 +0200 writes: > On 8/23/20 5:02 PM, Rory Winston wrote: >> Hi >> >> I noticed a small inconsistency when using sum() vs cumsum() >> >> I have a char-based series >> >> > tryjpy$long >> >> [1]

I am having a problem with optim() using the "L-BFGS-B" method. When I set the lower limit for the third parameter equal to zero I get an error message: > low.lim.3 <- 0 > phi_opt <- optim(phi_, model_lik, NULL, method = "L-BFGS-B", lower=c(0.2, -100, low.lim.3, 0), upper= c(10, 100, 10, 10), control = list(maxit = 1000, parscale = c(0.2, u1, 0.002, 0.002), trace =

I was testing Ilia's patches for ddx, and while they definitely helped for Xorg itself, qemu still eats a lot of CPU if launched like this qemu-system-x86_64 -cdrom ~/Downloads/ISO/slax-English-US-7.0.8-x86_64.iso -m 1G -display sdl,gl=on -enable-kvm and left for few hours. top - 07:38:01 up 18:05, 2 users, load average: 2,00, 1,89, 1,83 Tasks: 224 total, 3 running, 221 sleeping, 0