search for: 0.329

grDevices::convertColor has arguments 'from' and 'to' which can take on value 'XYZ'. Can someone confirm that 'XYZ' is the same as the CIE chromaticity coordinates that are also sometimes refered to as 'xyY' in the literature? Or are these the CIE tristimulus values? It looks to me like the first case is true, but I would appreciate hearing from one of

Dear HelpeRs, I have some data: "ice" <- structure(c(0.386, 0.374, 0.393, 0.425, 0.406, 0.344, 0.327, 0.288, 0.269, 0.256, 0.286, 0.298, 0.329, 0.318, 0.381, 0.381, 0.47, 0.443, 0.386, 0.342, 0.319, 0.307, 0.284, 0.326, 0.309, 0.359, 0.376, 0.416, 0.437, 0.548, 41, 56, 63, 68, 69, 65, 61, 47, 32, 24, 28, 26, 32, 40, 55, 63, 72, 72, 67, 60, 44, 40, 32, 27, 28, 33,

Hi, I hope some one can help. I need to compute Thurston's case 5 on a large set of data. I have gotten as far as computing the proportional preference matrix but the next math is beyond me. Here us my matrix 0.500 0.472 0.486 0.587 0.366 0.483 0.496 0.434 0.528 0.500 0.708 0.578 0.633 0.554 0.395 0.620 0.514 0.292 0.500 0.370 0.557 0.580 0.615 0.329 0.413 0.422 0.630 0.500 0.783 0.641 0.731

Hello all, I am trying to understand the different results I am getting from the following 3 commands: chisq.test(c(62,50), p = c(0.512,1-0.512), correct = F) # p-value = 0.3788 binom.test(x=62,n=112, p= 0.512) # p-value = 0.3961 2*(1-pbinom(62,112, .512)) # p-value = 0.329 Well, the binom.test was supposed to be "exact" and give the same results as the pbinom, while the chisq.test

Dear all, The 'make check' step fails for the pacakge mva on IBM AIX. The tail of the Rout log file looks like: > for(factors in 2:4) print(update(Harman23.FA, factors = factors)) Call: factanal(factors = factors, covmat = Harman23.cor) Uniquenesses: height arm.span forearm lower.leg weight 0.170 0.107 0.166

Dear R users I have a big matrix like 6021 1188 790 290 1174 1015 1990 6613 6288 100714 6021 1 0.658 0.688 0.474 0.262 0.163 0.137 0.32 0.252 0.206 1188 0.658 1 0.917 0.245 0.331 0.122 0.148 0.194 0.168 0.171 790 0.688 0.917 1 0.243 0.31 0.122 0.15 0.19 0.171 0.174 290 0.474

I suspect the weights argument is not having any effect. Package: Matrix Version: 0.995-2 Date: 2006-01-19 Beginning with this: Browse[1]> resp.lmer <- lmer(SensSSC ~ Block + Season + (1 | Plot) + (1 | Ma) + (1 | Pa) + + (1 | MaPa), weights = SensSSC.N, data = xx) I group the output into a table with my ran.eff function and get this:

I have a data matrix with genes as columns and samples as rows. I want to create all possible gene ratios.Is there an elegant and fast way to do it in R and write it to a dataframe? Thanks for any help. Som. -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/Calculating-all-possible-ratios-tp4627405.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. [[alternative HTML

Hi there, I am doing multiple comparisons for data that is not normally distributed. For this purpose I tried both functions kruskal{agricolae} and kruskalmc{pgirmess}. It confuses me that these functions do not yield the same results although they are doing the same thing, don't they? Can anyone tell my why this happens and which function I can trust? kruskalmc() tells me that there are no

In this real example (below), all four of the replicates in one treatment combination had zero failures, and this produced a very high standard error in the summary.lm. =20 Just adding one failure to one of the replicates produced a well-behaved standard error. =20 I don't know if this is a bug, but it is certainly hard for users to understand. =20 I would value your comments=20 =20 Thanks =20

I have a Dell 2007FP monitor. NV43 (GeForce 6600) can not use the native resolution. 1600x1200 is listed under "DDC gathered Modelines" with the rest of the info, but then is missing from "probed modes". I have a secondary card, NV4a (GeForce 6200, PCI). It works with this card. This card does not show "DDC gathered modelines" at all, and 1600x1200 is listed

Hi all, I have a question and I do not know If I am at the right place to ask this question. But is there someone that has the formula of CKD-Epi in code in R? I have tried a lot of loops, but none of the approaches give me the right answer. Is there someone who has this formula coded? Thank you! [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi all, I have a question about multiple imputation within the MICE package. I want to use passive imputation for my variable called X, because it is calculated out of multiple variables, namely Y, Z. Let's give an example with BMI. I know, that if I want to use passive imputation for BMI, I can use the following command: meth["BMI"] <- "~I(weight/(height/100)^2)"

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Wolfgang Rißler <wolle321 at freenet.de> wrote: > I try to send a friendly ping to my problem. > At the moment I'm running at 1600x1200 (monitor than has 1600x1200 > too), what looks better then 1920x1200 picture on that Monitor with > 960x1200. > I cant get 1920x1200 working, but I'm shure, that the monitor has this > native

I am trying to get confidence bands for a non-linear power function (y=mx^b). I thought I should be able to figure it out, but can't. Are there any R consultant? I would be willing to pay some amount of money, but not sure such consultants exist. I fit power functions to lots of data, and this would be very useful. I would ideally like to have confidence bands for the mean function and a

Further pursuing my curiosity to measure the efficiency of R/C++ interface, I conducted a simple matrix-vector multiplication test using .C and .Call functions in R. In each case, I measured the execution time in R, as well as inside the C++ function. Subtracting the two, I came up with a measure of overhead associated with each call. I assume that this overhead would be non-existent of the entire

Hi r-users,   I would like to extract the data that match.  Attached is my data: I'm interested in matchind the value in column 'intg' with value in column 'rand_no' > cbind(z=z,intg=dd,rand_no = rr)             z  intg rand_no    [1,]  0.00 0.000   0.001    [2,]  0.01 0.000   0.002    [3,]  0.02 0.000   0.002    [4,]  0.03 0.000   0.003    [5,]  0.04 0.000   0.003    [6,] 

Hello, I did a cross-validation using cvlm from DAAG package but wasn't sure how to assess the result. Does this result means my model is a good model? I understand that the overall ms is the mean of sum of squares. But is 0.0987 a good number? The response (i.e. gailRel5yr) has min,1st Quantile, median, mean and 3rd Quantile, and max as follows: (0.462, 0.628, 0.806, 0.896, 1.000, 2.400) ?

Hi, I am running the following model: fit1.full <- coxme(Surv(age_sym1, sym1) ~ sex + lifedxm*sex + (1|famid), data=bip.surv) I would like to extract the AIC from that object to calculate the AICC. However, when I look at str(fit1.full) and summary(fit1.full) (pasted below) I don't see anything that would allow me to get pull the AIC out from that object. Is there a way to retrieve the

I want to compare the following two models in AIC (Treat, Spotter are categorial, p is pressure, Pain is continuous) PainW.lme<-lme(Pain~p+Treat*Spotter,data=saw,random=~p|Pat, weights=varPower(form=~Pain)) # AIC= -448 Pain.lme<-lme(Pain~p+Treat*Spotter,data=saw,random=~p|Pat) #AIC = -19.7 Note the huge differences in AIC, and the estimated power of 6. A plot of the residual