Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "1e45".
Did you mean:
1045
2016 Dec 01
2
Different results for cos,sin,tan and cospi,sinpi,tanpi
...then coincide, by sheer implementation.
*BUT* it is not at all clear which of the two results is better;
e.g., if you replace '1.23' by '1' in the above examples, the
result of the unchnaged *pi() functions is 100% accurate,
whereas
R> sapply(c(cos,sin,tan), function(Fn) Fn(1e45*pi))
[1] -0.8847035 -0.4661541 0.5269043
is "garbage". After all, 1e45 is an even integer and so, the
(2pi)-periodic functions should give the same as for 0 which
*is* (1, 0, 0).
For such very large arguments, the results of all of sin() ,
cos() and tan() are in some sense "...
2007 Oct 23
1
Custom colourkey spacing in levelplot, contourplot
Dear R gurus,
I have got stuck on how to customise the colorkey generated by
levelplot and contourplot, in the lattice package. This best
illustrated by an example:
library(lattice)
levelplot(volcano^20/1e45,at=c(0,0.001,0.01,0.1,1,10))
The reason for raising the volcano dataset to the 20th power is to
create a dataset with a large vertical exaggeration - this is similar
in nature to the data set that I am dealing with. Now, if you look at
the colorkey to the right of the plot, you'll see that its...
2016 Dec 01
0
Different results for cos,sin,tan and cospi,sinpi,tanpi
...ntation.
>
> *BUT* it is not at all clear which of the two results is better;
> e.g., if you replace '1.23' by '1' in the above examples, the
> result of the unchnaged *pi() functions is 100% accurate,
> whereas
>
> R> sapply(c(cos,sin,tan), function(Fn) Fn(1e45*pi))
> [1] -0.8847035 -0.4661541 0.5269043
>
> is "garbage". After all, 1e45 is an even integer and so, the
> (2pi)-periodic functions should give the same as for 0 which
> *is* (1, 0, 0).
>
> For such very large arguments, the results of all of sin() ,
> cos...
2016 Dec 01
1
Different results for cos,sin,tan and cospi,sinpi,tanpi
...BUT* it is not at all clear which of the two results is better;
>> e.g., if you replace '1.23' by '1' in the above examples, the
>> result of the unchnaged *pi() functions is 100% accurate,
>> whereas
>>
>> R> sapply(c(cos,sin,tan), function(Fn) Fn(1e45*pi))
>> [1] -0.8847035 -0.4661541 0.5269043
>>
>> is "garbage". After all, 1e45 is an even integer and so, the
>> (2pi)-periodic functions should give the same as for 0 which
>> *is* (1, 0, 0).
>>
>> For such very large arguments, the result...
2016 Dec 01
2
Different results for cos,sin,tan and cospi,sinpi,tanpi
Hi,
i try sin, cos, and tan.
> sapply(c(cos,sin,tan),function(x,y)x(y),1.23e45*pi)
[1] 0.5444181 0.8388140 1.5407532
However, *pi results the following
> sapply(c(cospi,sinpi,tanpi),function(x,y)x(y),1.23e45)
[1] 1 0 0
Please try whether the following becomes all right.
diff -ruN R-3.3.2.orig/src/nmath/cospi.c R-3.3.2/src/nmath/cospi.c
--- R-3.3.2.orig/src/nmath/cospi.c 2016-09-15