search for: 0.0199

hi all i have a question that about the eigen analysis found in R and in eviews. i used the same data set in the two packages and found different answers. which is incorrect? the data is: aa ( a correlation matrix) 1 0.9801 0.9801 0.9801 0.9801 0.9801 1 0.9801 0.9801 0.9801 0.9801 0.9801 1 0.9801 0.9801 0.9801 0.9801 0.9801 1 0.9801 0.9801 0.9801 0.9801 0.9801 1 now > svd(aa) $d [1] 4.9204

G'Day Tanya, Is it too late to bring in the following patches to fix some major brokenness in the AuroraUX tool chain for 2.6? http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84468&r2=84469&view=diff&pathrev=84469 http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84265&r2=84266&view=diff&pathrev=84266

Hi Tanya, > 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects > directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a > pre-compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. I compiled llvm and llvm-gcc with separate objects directories. Platform is x86_64-linux-gnu. > 2) Run make check, report any failures (FAIL or unexpected pass). Note > that you need to

On Oct 20, 2009, at 6:02 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Tanya, > >> 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects >> directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a pre- >> compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. > > I compiled llvm and llvm-gcc with separate objects directories. > Platform is x86_64-linux-gnu. > Ok.

LLVMers, 2.6 pre-release2 is ready to be tested by the community. http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.6/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. To test llvm-gcc: 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a pre- compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. 2) Run make check,

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, I was doing a Kolmogrov test on x, y shown below. They are both 151 long. According to the help file, exact p-value is not available so I set "exact = FALSE", but still got the warning. There are no duplicated values in either X or Y. Thank you for your tips. BTW, is there functions in R about Extreme value theory? ******************************************** > ks.test(x, y,

Hello, When evaluating different learning methods for a categorization problem with the (really useful!) caret package, I'm getting confusing results from the Kappa computation. The data is about 20,000 rows and a few dozen columns, and the categories are quite asymmetrical, 4.1% in one category and 95.9% in the other. When I train a ctree model as: model <- train(dat.dts,

Dear list, I'm currently trying to use the rms package to get predicted ordinal responses from a conditional ratio model. As you will see below, my model seems to fit well to the data, however, I'm having trouble getting predicted mean (or fitted) ordinal response values using the predict function. I have a feeling I'm missing something simple, however I haven't been able to

Below is a SIMEX object that was generated with the "simex" function from the "simex" package applied to a logistic regression fit. From this mountain of information I would like to extract all of the values summarized in this line: .. ..$ variance.jackknife: num [1:5, 1:4] 1.684 1.144 0.85 0.624 0.519 ... Can someone suggest how to go about doing this? I can extract the

Hi all R users I did a logistic regression with my binary variable Y (0/1) and 2 explanatory variables. Now I try to draw my nomogram with predictive value. I visited the help of R but I have problem to understand well the example. When I use glm fonction, I have a problem, thus I use lrm. My code is: modele<-lrm(Y~L+P,data=donnee) fun<- function(x) plogis(x-modele$coef[1]+modele$coef[2])

Hi, Sean: I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making a *BIG* change to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor change to populateLTOPassManager() by separating module-pass and non-module-passes, I saw quite a few performance difference, most of them are degradations. Attacking these degradations one by one in a piecemeal manner is wasting

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.

Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got chance to list a detailed pass order for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations. This is wish-list in our mind: pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or just inline tiny func), get rid of all loop xforms... post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only

LLVMers, The 2.5 pre-release is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.5/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. Please do the following: 1) Download/compile llvm source, and either compile llvm-gcc source or use llvm-gcc binary (please compile llvm-gcc with fortran if you can). 2) Run make check, send me the testrun.log 3) Run "make

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