search for: discrepant

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)

Hello, I am looking for an explanation and/or fix for a discrepancy in the behaviour of the R lm.influence() function [ version R 1.5.0 (2002-04-29) ] and the same function in Splus [ Splus version 5.1 release 1, running on SGI IRIX 6.2]. The discrepancy is of concern because I am migrating some Splus scripts to R and need to ensure consistency of results. Specifically, when I fit a glm()

> 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

...e and more "extreme" tables in the sense of the ranking in (2). The question is: what "measure of discrepancy" is used in 'fisher.test' corresponding to stage (2)? (There are in principle several possibilities, e.g. value of a Pearson chi-squared, large values being discrepant; the probability calculated in (2), small values being discrepant; ... ) "?fisher.test" says only: In the one-sided 2 by 2 cases, p-values are obtained directly using the hypergeometric distribution. Otherwise, computations are based on a C version of the FORTRAN sub...

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

...t;F) COND 3 26516 8839 3.2517 0.03651 * TIME 1 473 473 0.1739 0.67986 COND:TIME 3 975 325 0.1195 0.94785 Residuals 28 76107 2718 I don't understand why the two results are discrepant. In particular, I'm not sure why R is yielding 28 DF for the residuals whereas SPSS only yields 16. Can anyone help? E-mail replies would be much appreciated. I can be reached at larry_sonna at yahoo.com and at larry_sonna at hotmail.com Thanks in advance, Larry Sonna

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 in config.h.cmake (config.h.in analog) these functions just are not

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

I have been using R and SAS from past 6 months and i found a interesting thing while doing PLS in R and SAS is that when we use NO SCALE option in SAS and scale=FALSE in R , we see the estimates 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

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

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

Whoops, phone rang and 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 > > > >

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 happens because in