search for: 0.0131

Always reply to the list. I do not do private consulting. (I have cc'ed this to the list). I still think this belongs on stackexchange, not r-help. I think you need to read up on the mathematics of spline bases. Cheers, Bert Bert Gunter "The trouble with having an open mind is that people keep coming along and sticking things into it." -- Opus (aka Berkeley Breathed in his

Hi, I'm using a Cox-Regression to estimate hazard rates on prepayments. I'm using the "pspline" function to face non-linearity, but I have no clue how to interpret the result. Unfortunately I did not find enough information on the "pspline" function wether in the survival package nor using google.. I got following output: * library(survival)* > > > >

Dear experts, I just noticed that I get different results conducting type III anova using drop1 or the Anova command from the car package. I suppose I made a mistake and hope you can offer me some help. I have no idea where I got wrong and would be very grateful for explaination as R is new terrain for me. If I run the commands in line, they produce the same results. But if I run them in

Dear all I have the following data (a shortened extract shown; some replictates of time deleted) to which I fitted the linear model given below: time group mass 11 control 0.019 11 control 0.014 14 control 0.0306 14 control 0.0289 14 control 0.0236 17 control 0.0469 17 control 0.0709 11 five 0.0077 11 five

Dear r-users, I want to use the Cox's ph model to analyze survival data set. How can I extract the model coefs. and Wald test p-value or Score? For example: I use the data set melanom in iSwR package. > library(survival) > data(melanom) > attach(melanom) > cox.model <- coxph(Surv(days,status==1)~sex) > summary(cox.model) Call: coxph(formula = Surv(days, status == 1) ~

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.

Dear users, I think my questions are pretty simple, but I got lost in the hundreds of par() and plot() arguments and plot functions, so I don't know in which direction I should go. Here is my sample dataset: test <- structure(list(DIET = structure(c(1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 1L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 3L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 2L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L, 4L), .Label = c("G", "GG", "L",

Hi List, I have spent more than 30 minutes, but failed to read in this file using the read.table() function. I could not figure out how to fix the following error. Error in scan(file, what, nmax, sep, dec, quote, skip, nlines, na.strings, : line 1 did not have 6 elements Any help would be be appreciated. Thanks, Pradip Muhuri ####### below is the reproducible example xd1 <-

Hi, I ran a small data set from a factorial experiment through R, Minitab and JMP... the result from R is significantly different from what Minitab or JMP give... The data set is at the following link: http://www.personal.psu.edu/nug107/Uploads/2x3_16repsANOVA.txt The first 5 columns are the factors and the next three are responses. In particular, for the response beta11MSE, two of the

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

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. >>

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 all, I've started looking at the GlobalMerge pass, enabled by default on ARM and AArch64. I think we should reconsider that, at least for AArch64. As is, the pass just merges all globals together, in groups of 4KB (AArch64, 128B on ARM). At the time it was enabled, the general thinking was "it's almost free, it doesn't affect performance much, we might as well use it".

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