search for: discrepancies

Hi, I found a discrepancy between results in R and Stata for a factor analysis with a promax rotation. For Stata: . *rotate, factor(2) promax* (promax rotation) Rotated Factor Loadings Variable | 1 2 Uniqueness -------------+-------------------------------- pfq_amanag~y | -0.17802 0.64161 0.70698 pfq_bwalk_~ø | 0.72569 0.05570

Hello I would like to develop the use of R. Trying R and more particulary the cox model, I am surprised by discrepancies between results with stata and R for a cox model With the same data base, I get a hazard ratio (4.82) that is not the same obtained with stata (4.52) You will find attached the file leukemia.dta I used (Stata) Here are the codes for R library(foreign) leukemia<-read.dta("leukemia.dta&qu...

...ile Splus returns the drop-one coefficients. But this does not account for the discrepancy that I see in the lm.influence$coefficients, nor the difference in lm.influence$sigma, at least to my understanding. Pasted below is output, first from R, and second from Splus, which illustates the issue. Discrepancies between the R and Splus $sigma values look like ~ 2-6%. Hopefully I have not overlooked an obvious statistical explanation for the difference. Thanks, Andrew. ---------------------------------------- > version _ platform mips-sgi-irix6.5 arch mips os...

> I have noticed a discrepancy between is.list() and is(x, ?list?) There's a similar problem with inherits(). On R 3.5.3: > f = function () 1 > class (f) = "f" > is.function (f) [1] TRUE > inherits (f, "function") [1] FALSE I didn't check what happens with: > class (f) = c ("f", "function") However, they should have the same

I want to ascertain the basis of the table ranking, i.e. the meaning of "extreme", in Fisher's Exact Test as implemented in 'fisher.test', when applied to RxC tables which are larger than 2x2. One can summarise a strategy for the test as 1) For each table compatible with the margins of the observed table, compute the probability of this table conditional on the

Hi! I want to create a discrepancy matrix. I have got a data.frame Q: number colour date 2 343 b 1503 3 678 g 1701 4 347 b 1904 5 345 b 2001 6 123 g 1809 Now i want to create a matrix, whose entries are the total differences between the ranks of number and date for each

Hi, I would liek to ask the list if any one can explain why there should be a discrepency in the directory sizes that are displayed when I use explorer on Windows. This has been reported to me by a user, I have never seen this before as I dont use windows if I can help it :-)... When I slect properties of a directory it has two enties Size and Size on disk As an example size says 33 bytes, size

Dear R community, I am trying to resolve a discrepancy between the way SPSS and R handle 2-way, repeated measures ANOVA. An experiment was performed in which samples were drawn before and after treatment of four groups of subjects (control and disease states 1, 2 and 3). Each group contained five subjects. An experimental measurement was performed on each sample to yield a

Hello. I see many discrepancies in config.h file generated by CMake and autoheader. Most of them are following: In autofoo-generated config: > /* Define to 1 if you have the `<name>' function. */ > #define HAVE_<name> 1 > but in CMake-generated: > #undef HAVE_<name> > This happens because i...

In the case of inherits (at least) this seems intended. The help page says: "If the object does not have a class attribute, it has an implicit class..." which I take to mean that if an object does have a class attribute it does not also have an implicit class. The behavior you noted below will apply to other types bearing implicit classes. For example: > inherits(1.0,

Is there any way to _test_ if a given sequence is a low-discrepancy sequence? Or, equivalently, is there any way to measure the "discrepancy" of a sequence? WTIW, ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-discrepancy_sequence ... doesn't look like something implementation-friendly :-) Alberto Monteiro PS: low discrepany sequences are easily generated in R by the functions

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2374 Summary: Discrepancy in --exclude-from option between Gnu tar and rsync Product: rsync Version: 2.6.3 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org

...tes are matching but if we use scaling option in SAS and R the estimates differ to greater extent , you can try with any data set we will get very different estimates while using the scaling option. can any one help me in this issue ? -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/Discrepancies-in-the-estimates-of-Partial-least-square-PLS-in-SAS-and-R-tp4605165.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

In the course of exploring response prediction, I stumbled upon a small discrepancy between the CIs produced by predict.lm() and all.effects() require(mlmRev) require(effects) hsb.lm <- lm(mAch ~ minrty * sector, Hsb82) hsb.new <- data.frame( minrty = rep(c('No', 'Yes'), 2), sector = rep(c('Public', 'Catholic'), each = 2)) hsb.eff <-

I'm using R on Windows v2.0.1 with the nlme package (v3.1-53) and am finding some unexpected discrepancies in the output of intervals.lme and coef.lme. I've included a toy dataset at the end, but briefly, the data are longitudinal data from couples in marital therapy. Each spouse's relationship satisfaction is measured 4 times; I've fit both linear and quadratic models to the change over t...

In addition, signed zeroes only exist for floating point numbers - the bit patterns for as.integer(0) and as.integer(-0) are identical. Bill Dunlap TIBCO Software wdunlap tibco.com On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: >>>>>> Florent Angly <florent.angly at gmail.com> >>>>>> on Wed, 25 Jan 2017

...I forgot to cc to the list before I typed the message. ----- Forwarded Message ---- > From: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> > To: Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com> > Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 3:38:21 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] include/Config/config.h discrepancies between CMake and >autofoo builds > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com> > > To: Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> > > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011...

Install the gmp package, run your code, and then try this: bu <- gmp::as.bigq(u) bs4 <- bu[1] + bu[2] + bu[3] + bu[4] + bu[5] s4 <- as.double(bs4) s1 - s4 ## [1] 0 s2[[2]] - s4 ## [1] 7.105427e-15 s3 - s4 ## [1] 7.105427e-15 identical(s1, s4) ## [1] TRUE `bs4` is the exact sum of the binary rationals in your `u` vector; `s4` is the closest double precision to this exact sum.

useRs- I'm attempting to scan a more than 1Gb text file and read and store the values that follow a specific key-phrase that is repeated multiple time throughout the file. A snippet of the text file I'm trying to read is attached. The text file is a dumping ground for various aspects of the performance of the model that generates it. Thus, the location of information I'm wanting

On Jan 4, 2011, at 7:45 AM, arrowdodger wrote: > Hello. I see many discrepancies in config.h file generated by CMake and autoheader. > > Most of them are following: > In autofoo-generated config: > /* Define to 1 if you have the `<name>' function. */ > #define HAVE_<name> 1 > but in CMake-generated: > #undef HAVE_<name> > This happ...