search for: cospy

The pretty picture that I saw at: http://chartsgraphs.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/r-panel-chart-beats-excel-chart/#more-1096 inspired me to try something similar. The code that I wrote is: ------snipsnip--------------------------------------------------------------------- M <- structure(list(date = structure(c(13634, 13665, 13695, 13726, 13757, 13787, 13818, 13848, 13879, 13910, 13939, 13970,

hi, my environment... > sessionInfo() R version 3.3.2 (2016-10-31) Platform: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (64-bit) Running under: Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie) locale: [1] LC_CTYPE=ja_JP.UTF-8 LC_NUMERIC=C [3] LC_TIME=ja_JP.UTF-8 LC_COLLATE=ja_JP.UTF-8 [5] LC_MONETARY=ja_JP.UTF-8 LC_MESSAGES=ja_JP.UTF-8 [7] LC_PAPER=ja_JP.UTF-8 LC_NAME=C [9] LC_ADDRESS=C

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

Please note that you need to report your platforms (as per the posting guide), as the C function starts #ifdef HAVE_COSPI #elif defined HAVE___COSPI double cospi(double x) { return __cospi(x); } And AFAICS the system versions on Solaris and OS X behave the same way as R's substitute. On 01/12/2016 09:12, Martin Maechler wrote: >>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler

As the subject line says, we get different results for tan(pi/2) and tanpi(1/2), though this should not be the case: > tan(pi/2) [1] 1.633124e+16 > tanpi(1/2) [1] NaN Warning message: In tanpi(1/2) : NaNs produced By redefining tanpi with sinpi and cospi, we can get closer: > tanpi <- function(x) sinpi(x) / cospi(x) > tanpi(c(0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2))

>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> >>>>> on Thu, 1 Dec 2016 09:36:10 +0100 writes: >>>>> Ei-ji Nakama <nakama at ki.rim.or.jp> >>>>> on Thu, 1 Dec 2016 14:39:55 +0900 writes: >> Hi, >> i try sin, cos, and tan. >>> sapply(c(cos,sin,tan),function(x,y)x(y),1.23e45*pi)

The issue is that without an extensible derivative table or the proposed extensions, it is not possible to automatically produce (without manual modification of the deriv3 output) a function that avoids catastrophic cancellation regardless of the working range. Manual modification is not onerous as a one-time exercise, but can be time consuming when it must be done numerous times, for example

The derivative table resides in the function D. In S+ that table is extensible because it is written in the S language. R is faster but less flexible, since that table is programmed in C. It would be useful if R provided a mechanism for extending the derivative table, or barring that, provided a broader table. Currently unsupported mathematical functions of one argument include expm1, log1p,

The same argument would hold for tan(pi/2). I don't say the result 'NaN' is wrong, but I thought, tan(pi*x) and tanpi(x) should give the same result. Hans Werner On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:44 PM, William Dunlap <wdunlap at tibco.com> wrote: > It should be the case that tan(pi*x) != tanpi(x) in many cases - that is why > it was added. The limits from below and below of the

If pi were stored and computed to infinite precision then yes we would expect tan(pi/2) to be NaN, but computers in general and R specifically don't store to infinite precision (some packages allow arbitrary (but still finite) precision) and irrational numbers cannot be stored exactly. So you take the value of the built in variable pi, which is close to the theoretical value, but not exactly

Hi. Unless I'm misremembering, log, exp, sin, cos, and tan are all handled in deriv3. The functions listed are specially coded slightly more accurate versions but can be substituted with native ones for which deriv/deriv3 will work automatically. I believe that if you write your functions using log(a + 1) instead of log1p(a) or log(x) / log(2) instead of log2(x) deriv3 will work fine.

Hi, I have downloaded Vorbis and played with it, and I have downloaded Speex but not yet played with it. My understanding is that Vorbis is targetted at high-quality audio (music) while Speex is targetted at speech quality audio (telephoney and such). So I have two questions to ask the group: 1. Which would your experiences show is the better codec for recording high quality speech such

Hello, I am trying to build R from source on Scientific Linux release 6.9 (Carbon), Linux version 2.6.32-696.3.2.el6.x86_64 (Red Hat 4.4.7-18). I load the needed modules and run: *./configure --prefix $install_dir --with-blas --with-lapack --enable-R-shlib 2>&1 | tee config-R-$version.log* The "configure" command seems to run ok: *R is now configured for

Please note that building R on Windows is documented in "R Installation and Administration", including links to external software. Particularly there is a link to texinfo which is part of Rtools. The documentation is maintained and it is a sufficient source of information for building R on Windows. https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-admin.html