Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "0.0452".
Did you mean:
0.0052
2007 Nov 24
5
how to calculate the return?
Hi, R-users,
data is a matrix like this
AMR BS GE HR MO UK SP500
1974 -0.3505 -0.1154 -0.4246 -0.2107 -0.0758 0.2331 -0.2647
1975 0.7083 0.2472 0.3719 0.2227 0.0213 0.3569 0.3720
1976 0.7329 0.3665 0.2550 0.5815 0.1276 0.0781 0.2384
1977 -0.2034 -0.4271 -0.0490 -0.0938 0.0712 -0.2721 -0.0718
1978 0.1663 -0.0452 -0.0573 0.2751 0.1372 -0.1346
2005 Jun 29
1
poly() in lm() leads to wrong coefficients (but correct residuals)
Dear all,
I am using poly() in lm() in the following form.
1> DelsDPWOS.lm3 <- lm(DelsPDWOS[,1] ~ poly(DelsPDWOS[,4],3))
2> DelsDPWOS.I.lm3 <- lm(DelsPDWOS[,1] ~ poly(I(DelsPDWOS[,4]),3))
3> DelsDPWOS.2.lm3 <-
lm(DelsPDWOS[,1]~DelsPDWOS[,4]+I(DelsPDWOS[,4]^2)+I(DelsPDWOS[,4]^3))
1 and 2 lead to identical but wrong results. 3 is correct. Surprisingly
(to me) the residuals
2010 Dec 15
1
Using Metafor package: how to backtransform model coefficients when Freeman Tukey double arcine transformation is used
Hello,
I am performing a meta-analysis using the metafor package. My data are
proportions and I used the Freeman Tukey double arcine (FT)
transformation to fit the random effects model. Now I want to create a
forest plot with my estimates backtransformed to the original scale of
proportions. Can this be done?
Regards,
Patricia
2008 Feb 03
0
[LLVMdev] 2.2 Prerelease available for testing
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.
2012 Nov 23
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] costing optimisations
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.
>>
2008 Jan 24
6
[LLVMdev] 2.2 Prerelease available for testing
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
2007 Sep 18
0
[LLVMdev] 2.1 Pre-Release Available (testers needed)
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
2007 Sep 15
22
[LLVMdev] 2.1 Pre-Release Available (testers needed)
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