search for: 0.0287

Dear sir, I am extremely sorry for messing up the logic asking for help w.r.t. my earlier mails   I have tried to explain below what I am looking for.     I have a database (say, currency_rates) storing datewise currency exchange rates with some base currency XYZ.   currency_rates <- data.frame(date = c("12/31/2010", "12/30/2010", "12/29/2010",

My mistake sir. I was literally engrossed in my stupid logic, and while doing so, overlooked the simple and very effective solution you had offered. Sorry once again sir and will certainly try to be very careful in future. Thanks again and have a great weekend sir. Regards Amelia --- On Fri, 7/1/11, Petr PIKAL <petr.pikal@precheza.cz> wrote: From: Petr PIKAL

Hi, I encountered a weird problem when using the Design and Hmisc problem. I have 2 data frame called "a" and "b", both have 3 columns: "time", "status" and "scores", a sample of the data frame is like: data frame "a": time status scores 1 21 1 99.61 2 38 0 101.11 3 51 0 100.62 4 48 0 87.52 5 78 0

Hi, I downloaded both gee and geepack, and I am trying to understand the differences between the two libraries. I used the same data and estimated the same model, with a correlation structure autoregressive of order 1. Surprisingly for me, I found very different results. Coefficients are slightly different in value but sometimes opposite in sign. Moreover, the estimate of rho (correlation

sorry, I had a typo there, it's datadist(b) for the analysis of data frame "b". --- Robert Balshaw <Robert.Balshaw at syreon.com> wrote: > Not sure if this will help, but did you mean to use > datadist(a) for > the analysis of B? > > Rob > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch > >

Dear all, I try to consider overdispersion in a lmer model. But using family=quasibinomial rather than family=binomial seems to change the fit but not the result of an anova test. In addition if we specify test="F" as it is recomanded for glm using quasibinomial, the test remains a Chisq test. Are all tests scaled for dispersion, or none? Why is there a difference between glm and lmer

Dear all, I'm using R 2.8.1 under Windows Vista on a dual core 2,4 GhZ with 4 GB of RAM. I'm trying to reproduce a result out of "Analysis of Financial Time Series" by Ruey Tsay. In R I'm using the fGarch library. After fitting a ar(3)-garch(1,1)-model > model<-garchFit(~arma(3,0)+garch(1,1), analyse) I'm saving the results via > result<-model

Hallo! I have run a EEG experiment and got the following data group: 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 ... as factor, 2 levels between subjects fixed effect (patient vs control) subj: 1 2 ... 14 1 2 ... 14 as factor 7 patients 7 control random effect condition: 1 1 ... 2 2 ... 1 1 ... 2 2 as factor, 2 levels within subjects, ie every subject worked on every cond fixed effect roi: 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 ... as factor,

On Feb 25, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola wrote: >>> Can someone else try to reproduce this? > > I tried gcc.c from > http://people.csail.mit.edu/smcc/projects/single-file-programs/ and the > difference is a bit more noticeable: > > -O0 -mno-relax-all > > real 0m13.182s > user 0m12.690s > sys 0m0.450s > > -O0 > > gcc.o is

>> Can someone else try to reproduce this? I tried gcc.c from http://people.csail.mit.edu/smcc/projects/single-file-programs/ and the difference is a bit more noticeable: -O0 -mno-relax-all real 0m13.182s user 0m12.690s sys 0m0.450s -O0 gcc.o is 10932968 bytes. real 0m12.969s user 0m12.520s sys 0m0.410s gcc.o is 11410552 bytes IMHO it would still be reasonable to switch to

Dear list members, the following hlm was constructed: hlm <- groupedData(laut ~ design | grpzugeh, data = imp.not.I) the grouped data object is located at and can be downloaded: www.anicca-vijja.de/lg/hlm_example.Rdata The following works: library(nlme) summary( fitlme <- lme(hlm) ) with output: ... AIC BIC logLik 425.3768 465.6087 -197.6884 Random effects:

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.

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

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

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