search for: 0.0109

Dear R user: I am studying the allele data of two populations. the following is the data: a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7 a8 a9 a10 a11 a12 a13 a14 a15 a16 a17 pop1 0.0217 0.0000 0.0109 0.0435 0.0435 0.0000 0.0109 0.0543 0.1739 0.0761 0.1413 0.1522 0.1087 0.0870 0.0435 0.0217 0.0109 pop2 0.0213 0.0213 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0426 0.1702 0.2128 0.1596 0.1809 0.0957 0.0745 0.0106

I'm getting an error message when using the new version of sqldf, > library(sqldf) > str(kdv) 'data.frame': 71 obs. of 3 variables: $ dpss: num 0.117 0.144 0.164 0.166 0.165 ... $ npdp: num 0.1264 0.0325 0.0109 0.0033 0.0055 ... $ logk: num 1.12 1.29 1.41 1.41 1.42 ... > test=sqldf("select * from kdv") Error in get("fun", env = this, inherits =

Hello, I have a question regarding estimation of the dispersion parameter (theta) for generalized linear models with the negative binomial error structure. As I understand, there are two main methods to fit glm's using the nb error structure in R: glm.nb() or glm() with the negative.binomial(theta) family. Both functions are implemented through the MASS library. Fitting the model using these

Hi all, i have a data set cintaining 14 columns and 11 rows. Rows represent single point and columns represent the parameter measured. I wiuld like to compare the data to see which are more alike. I used the cluster analysis, but now i ma wondering if there are some other methods, since the cluster analysis did not give me the result i like. I tried to use factanal() for factor analysis

Dear R-tisans, I am trying to calculate the 12th root of a transition (square) matrix, but can't seem to obtain an accurate result. I realize that this post is laced with intimations of quantitative finance, but the question is both R-related and broadly mathematical. That said, I'm happy to post this to R-SIG-Finance if I've erred in posting this to the general list. I've

Hi folks, I am working with repeated measures data and I ran into issues where the paired t-test results did not match those obtained by employing glht() contrasts on a lme model. While the lme model itself appears to be fine, there seems to be some discrepancy with using glht() on the lme model (unless I am missing something here). I was wondering if someone could help identify the issue. On

I've searched the Web with Google and do not find what might cause this particular error from an invocation of cenboxplot: cenboxplot(cu.t$quant, cu.t$ceneq1, cu.t$era, range=1.5, main='Total Recoverable Copper', ylab='Concentration (mg/L)', xlab='Time Period') Error in if (n > 0) (1L:n - a)/(n + 1 - 2 * a) else numeric() : argument is of length zero I do

On 23.11.2012, at 15:12, john skaller <skaller at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > On 23/11/2012, at 5:46 PM, Sean Silva wrote: > >> Adding LLVMdev, since this is intimately related to the optimization passes. >> >>> I think this is roughly because some function level optimisations are >>> worse than O(N) in the number of instructions. >>

Hi, I have a question about using "lme" and "aov" for the following dataset. If I understand correctly, using "aov" with Error term in the formula is equivalent to using "lme" with default settings, i.e. both assume compound symmetry correlation structure. And I have found that equivalency in the past. However, with the follwing dataset, I got different

Hi, I have a question about using "lme" and "aov" for the following dataset. If I understand correctly, using "aov" with an Error term in the formula is equivalent to using "lme" with default settings, i.e. both assume compound symmetry correlation structure. And I have found that equivalency in the past. However, with the follwing dataset, I got different

Hi all, Sent the following question yesterday, but haven't got any suggestions yet. So just trying again, can anyone comment on the problem that I have? Thank you! ------------- Hi, I have a question about using "lme" and "aov" for the following dataset. If I understand correctly, using "aov" with an Error term in the formula is equivalent to using

Hi Bert, Thanks for the suggestions. I tried lme with different control parameters, and also tried using "ML", instaed of "REML", but still got the same answers. Yes, I hope some gurus on this list could give me some hints. Thanks --- "Gunter, Bert" <bert_gunter at merck.com> wrote: > But they are close. This is almost certainly a > numeric issue --

Evan Cheng <evan.cheng <at> apple.com> writes: > Eli is right. We do need to see some benchmark numbers and understand how the pass will fit in the target > independent optimizer. While we encourage contribution, we typically don't commit new passes unless it > introduce new functionalities that have active clients. It would also help if you provide us with compile

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:42:18PM -0700, Tanya Lattner wrote: > The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: > http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ > > [...] > > 2) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the llvm-gcc4.0 source. > Compile everything. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite > (make TEST=nightly report). > > Send

Hi, I have been running the same code without problem for the last few days, changing data sets etc with no issue. Today I changed the covariates for the model and am now getting this error message: Error in `contrasts<-`(`*tmp*`, value = contr.funs[1 + isOF[nn]]) : contrasts can be applied only to factors with 2 or more levels Everything in the code looks the same to me, but I'm a

> Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> 於 2016年11月30日 上午5:14 寫道： > >> >> On Nov 29, 2016, at 4:02 AM, Bekket McClane via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> Though there exists lots of researches on parallelizing or scheduling optimization passes, If you open up the time matrices of

LLVMers, The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ I'm looking for members of the LLVM community to test the 2.1 release. There are 2 ways you can help: 1) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the appropriate llvm-gcc4.0 binary. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite (make TEST=nightly report). 2) Download

Target: FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE on i386 autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: i386-unknown-freebsd6.2 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305 [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release build. llvm-gcc 4.2 from source.

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

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