search for: gondan

...ing the mixture: never heard that this works, and I would probably not want to use it...Your work is much appreciated, thanks again.Best regards,Matthias -------- Urspr?ngliche Nachricht --------Von: Tomas Kalibera <tomas.kalibera at gmail.com> Datum: 04.11.20 15:43 (GMT+01:00) An: Matthias Gondan <matthias-gondan at gmx.de>, r-devel at r-project.org Betreff: Re: [Rd] sprintf, check number of parameters Dear Matthias,thanks for the suggestion, R-devel now warns on unused arguments by format (both numbered and un-numbered). It seems that the new warning is useful, often it finds cases w...

...radas at sapo.pt> wrote: > Hello, > > One way of preventing that is to use ?force. > Just put > > force(l) > > right after the commented out print and before you change 'u'. > > Hope this helps, > > Rui Barradas > > > > Citando Matthias Gondan <matthias-gondan at gmx.de>: > > > Dear R developers, >> >> sessionInfo() below >> >> Please have a look at the following two versions of the same function: >> >> 1. Intended behavior: >> >> Su1 = function(u=100, l=u, mu=0.53, sigma2=4....

...A short description of the necessary steps would be helpful. Searching around the internet was not very encourageing. Some people wrote that it is not so simple to have Atlas fully exploit a multicore computer. I hope this is not too unspecific. Best wishes, Matthias -- Dr. rer. nat. Matthias Gondan Institut f?r Psychologie Universit?t Regensburg D-93050 Regensburg Tel. 0941-943-3856 Fax 0941-943-3233 Email: matthias.gondan at psychologie.uni-regensburg.de http://www.psychologie.uni-r.de/Greenlee/team/gondan/gondan.html --

...In the future, I?ll avoid dependencies between parameters. Su4 <- function(u=100, l=100, mu=0.53, sigma2=4.3^2) # instead of l=u And maybe also ?in-place? changes of values? Best regards, Matthias Von: William Dunlap Gesendet: Samstag, 2. September 2017 19:41 An: Rui Barradas Cc: Matthias Gondan; r-help at r-project.org Betreff: Re: [R] Strange lazy evaluation of default arguments Another way to avoid the problem is to not redefine variables that are arguments.? E.g., > Su3 <- function(u=100, l=u, mu=0.53, sigma2=4.3^2, verbose) ? { ? ? if (verbose) { ? ? ? print(c(u, l, mu)) ? ? }...

Dear R developers, sessionInfo() below Please have a look at the following two versions of the same function: 1. Intended behavior: > Su1 = function(u=100, l=u, mu=0.53, sigma2=4.3^2) + { + print(c(u, l, mu)) # here, l is set to u?s value + u = u/sqrt(sigma2) + l = l/sqrt(sigma2) + mu = mu/sqrt(sigma2) + print(c(u, l, mu)) + } > > Su1() [1] 100.00 100.00 0.53 [1]

Dear Matthias, On 11/4/20 4:01 PM, matthias-gondan wrote: > Dear Tomas, > > Thank you. > > Regarding the "unnumbered" arguments, i.e. sprintf('%f %f', 1, 2, 3). > This was the case I wanted to report, here a warning can be very useful. > > Regarding the "numbered" arguments, that is, sprintf('...

...%in% c("p", "b")) pch, lty = if (type %in% c("l", "b")) lty, bty = leg.bty, bg = leg.bg) <- here I would add lwd=<well, the lwd from the ... argument, or perhaps something like leg.lwd> Best wishes, Matthias Gondan

...and ylim=c(-Inf, Inf)[as a replacement for NULL/ autoselection] and ylim=c(Inf, -Inf)[autoselection, reversed y axis] should be handled correctly. I would find such a feature useful. Do you think it would interfere with other functions? Thank you for your consideration. Best wishes, Matthias Gondan

Dear R developers, I am wondering if this should raise an error or a warning. > sprintf('%.f, %.f', 1, 2, 3) [1] "1, 2" I am aware that R has ?numbered? sprintf arguments (sprintf('%1$.f', ?), and in that case, omissing of specific arguments may be intended. But in the usual syntax, omission of an argument is probably a mistake. Thank you for your consideration.

This is a follow-up to a query that was posted regarding some problems that emerge when running anova analyses for cox models, posted by Mathias Gondan: Matthias Gondan wrote: >* Dear List,*>**>* I have tried a stratified Cox Regression, it is working fine, except for*>* the "Anova"-Tests:*>**>* Here the commands (should work out of the box):*>**>* library(survival)*>* d = colon[colon$etype==2, ]*>* m = co...

Dear R-user Suppose I have the following data y=c(2,1,5,8,11,3,1,7,50,21,33,7,60) x=data.frame(y) for(i in 4:nrow(x)) x[i,] =var(x[i-3:i-1,]) I'm trying to get a new variable with the variance of the 3 previous values (just an example) and with NA in the three first positions. I know that my for() is wrong but I'm not able to find my error. Any idea? Thanks, Marlene.

Hello, One way of preventing that is to use ?force. Just put force(l) right after the commented out print and before you change 'u'. Hope this helps, Rui Barradas Citando Matthias Gondan <matthias-gondan at gmx.de>: > Dear R developers, > > sessionInfo() below > > Please have a look at the following two versions of the same function: > > 1. Intended behavior: > >> Su1 = function(u=100, l=u, mu=0.53, sigma2=4.3^2) > + { > + print(c(u, l,...

...y, I would have expected the following correspondence, 2-1, 4-2, 6-3, etc. Temporary fix: > myrnorm = function(n, mean=0, sd=1) + { + qnorm(runif(n), mean, sd) + } # myrnorm > > set.seed(123) > pnorm(myrnorm(4)) [1] 0.2875775 0.7883051 0.4089769 0.8830174 Best wishes, Matthias Gondan -- GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 Euro/mtl.! Jetzt mit gratis Handy-Flat! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl

-------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Gildas Mazo <gildas.mazo at curie.fr> Subject: Re: [R] optimization subject to constraints Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:49:19 +0200 Size: 4924 URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/20100810/78862894/attachment.eml>

Mathias, If it's any comfort, I appreciated the example; 'expected' behaviour maybe, but a very nice example for staff/student training! S Ellison > -----Original Message----- > From: R-help [mailto:r-help-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of Matthias > Gondan > Sent: 02 September 2017 18:22 > To: r-help at r-project.org > Subject: [R] Strange lazy evaluation of default arguments > > Dear R developers, > > sessionInfo() below > > Please have a look at the following two versions of the same function: > > 1. Intended be...

My interpretation of the relation between 1-way ANOVA and Wilcoxon's test (wilcox.test() in R) is the following. 1-way ANOVA is to test if two or multiple distributions are the same, assuming all the distributions are normal and have equal variances. Wilcoxon's test is to test two distributions are the same without assuming what their distributions are. In this sense, I'm wondering

Dear list, Is anyone aware of a library for sample size calculation in R, similar to NQuery? I have to give a course in this area, and I would like to enable the students playing around with this. Best wishes, Matthias

Dear list, Apparently, there is no function like sscanf in R. I have a string, "Condition: 311", and I would like to read out the number and store it to a numeric variable. Is there an easy way to do this? Best wishes, Matthias --

Dear R-Users, Is anyone aware of a significance test which allows demonstrating that one distribution dominates another? Let F(t) and G(t) be two distribution functions, the alternative hypothesis would be something like: F(t) >= G(t), for all t null hypothesis: F(t) < G(t), for some t. Best wishes, Matthias PS. This one would be ok, as well: F(t) > G(t), for all t null

Dear R developers, A great R feature is that elements of vectors, lists and dataframes can have names: vx = c(a=1, b=2) lx = list(a=1, b=2) Accessing element "a" of vx: vx['a'] Accessing element "a" of lx: lx[['a']] or lx$a Might be a matter of taste, but I like the $ very much. Unfortunately, vx$a is not functional. Would it break existing compatibility