search for: 1.2e

Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to centos-announce at centos.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to centos-announce-request at centos.org You can reach the person managing the list at centos-announce-owner at centos.org When

Dear list members, I am trying to estimate parameters of the AR(1)-GARCH(1,1) model. I have one additional dummy variable for the AR(1) part. First I wanted to do it using garchFit function (everything would be then estimated in one step) however in the fGarch library I didn't find a way to include an additional variable. That would be the formula but, as said, I think it is impossible to add

Dear R experts, format(12345678, digits = 2) gives [1] "1.2e+07" while format(1234567, digits = 2) gives [1] "1234567" but I'd like the last number to be represented as "1.2e+06" string too. Where am I wrong? Thanks, Timur.

I'd like to save the number 0.0000012 to a file just as it appears, but when I dput(0.0000012, "t.txt"), I got 1.2e-06, NOT 0.0000012. Anybody knows how I can do this? > 0.0000012 [1] 1.2e-06 > as.character(0.0000012) [1] "1.2e-06" > dput(0.0000012, "t.txt") Thanks. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

I haven't looked inside to see what is causing this, but there's a big discontinuity in qgamma: curve(qgamma(x, shape=19), from=1e-10, to=2e-10) This appears in both R-patched and R-devel. Duncan Murdoch

In the documentation of 'pairs'(package:graphics), within the last example, it reads: format(c(r, 0.123456789), digits=3)[1] Why not simple use: format(r, digits=3)? What is the difference? Thanks. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/a-quick-question-about-%22format%28%29%22-tf4476762.html#a12764903 Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Hi all, I am running R version 2.4.0 (2006-10-03) on an i686 pc with Mandrake 10.2 Linux. I was given a binary data file containing single precision numbers that I would like to read into R. In a previous posting, someone suggested reading in such data as double(), which is what I've tried: > zz <- file(file, "rb") > h1 <- readBin(con = zz, what = double(), n = 1, size

CentOS Errata and Security Advisory CEBA-2005:428 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2005-428.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: s390: updates/s390/RPMS/bonobo-activation-2.2.2-1.2E.s390.rpm updates/s390/RPMS/bonobo-activation-devel-2.2.2-1.2E.s390.rpm s390x: updates/s390x/RPMS/bonobo-activation-2.2.2-1.2E.s390x.rpm

CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2005:428 bonobo-activation bug fix update for CentOS 3 x86_64: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2005-428.html The following updated file has been uploaded and is currently syncing to the mirrors: x86_64: updates/x86_64/RPMS/bonobo-activation-2.2.2-1.2E.i386.rpm updates/x86_64/RPMS/bonobo-activation-2.2.2-1.2E.x86_64.rpm

CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2005:428 bonobo-activation bug fix update for CentOS 3 i386: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2005-428.html The following updated file has been uploaded and is currently syncing to the mirrors: i386: updates/i386/RPMS/bonobo-activation-2.2.2-1.2E.i386.rpm updates/i386/RPMS/bonobo-activation-devel-2.2.2-1.2E.i386.rpm source:

PROBLEM `signif' does change to scientic notation at different levels depending on the number of significant digits in the input. This can generate tables where figures change ``irregularly'' from normal to scientific notation. PROPOSAL The change to the scientific notation should be made only if the figure in scientific notation - with potentially as

Hello, I have written the function I would like to integrate in two ways: denfxn <- function(yy,vv,a2,b2,mu2) { pp <- 1-pnorm(yy/sqrt(vv)) part1 <- pp^(a2-1) part2 <- (1-pp)^(b2-1) part3 <- dnorm(yy,mu2,sqrt(vv)) return(part1*part2*part3) } denfxnorg <- function(yy,vv,a2,b2,mu2) { pp <- 1-pnorm(yy/sqrt(vv)) pp <- if (pp < .001) .001 else

Hello everyone I appologize for my lack of experience in statistical methods. I am an R user begginer and I am running a logit model using "zelig" and "pcse" packages. I will go to the point and is that Im having problems with interpreting the results of my models.. It is really simple (I guess for the most advanced scholars) however I really dont understand how to interpret

Hello there, I have successfully run Warcraft3-ROC (patch level 1.2e) with wine-0.9.24. Everything works fine (copy protection, sound, ...), but wine refuses to launch the game in another resolution but 800x600x16bpp either in fullcreen or windowed mode. My config : - 1680x1050 TFT display, - geForce 6100 with 128M of videoRAM, and latest Nvidia drivers (1-9629) - a sempron 2800+ I would expect

CentOS Errata and Security Advisory CEBA-2005:428 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2005-428.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: files: updates/ia64/RPMS/bonobo-activation-2.2.2-1.2E.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/bonobo-activation-devel-2.2.2-1.2E.ia64.rpm -- Pasi Pirhonen - upi@iki.fi -

Hi every one. I have a exponential function (3 fitting parameters) that I would like to use to produce data (6 series) without having to use a loop. Here wl = seq(300,500,1) k1 = c(1.2e-6, 4.9e-6, 9.6e-6, 2.7e-10, 6.7e-8, 7.44e-6) k2 = c(726, 352, 128, 5232, 1538, 128) k3 = c(-176, -224, -257, 88.7, -111, -256) stations = c('R5d', 'R5a', 'R9', '108',

---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Different results from survreg with version 2.6.1 and 2.10.1 From: nathalcs at ulrik.uio.no Date: Fri, March 19, 2010 16:00 To: r-help at r-project.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear all I'm using survreg command in package survival.

I am using 'igraph' package to make some graphs of 'gene-gene interaction'. I can get a data.frame which has three columns. gene1 gene2 pvalue AGT MLR 1.2e-04 MLR 11BHSD1 1.71e-05 IFG2 11BHSD2 2.2e-07 . . . . . . . . . AGTR1 NPPA

The following fit does not make sense to me, please, correct me if I have a logical error. > moddowsn Call: coxph(formula = Surv(start, stop, resp) ~ sn + matfac2, data = coxsn1, method = "efron") coef exp(coef) se(coef) z p sn2 0.0497 1.051 0.02030 2.450 1.4e-02 sn3 -0.0532 0.948 0.02038 -2.610 9.0e-03 sn4 -0.0410 0.960

The data set in R is wrong. I've found mistakes on 2 lines in a quick look. I don't know if the data is incorrect in the Appendix of Fleming and Harrington as well (someone seems to have borrowed my copy), which is where the data set appears to have been taken from, given all the "-9" codes in it. (Note, Tom Fleming originally got the data from me, so I'm fairly