search for: infi

Dear Rui, Not working. I have entirely removed the column containing % but am still bootless: > head(coredata(INFYTX)) INFY Historical Data INFY Historical Data INFY Historical Data INFY Historical Data [1,] "47.26" "44.28" "47.56" "44.28" [2,] "46.30" "44.92"

Isn't this like trying to tie up the horse after it has left the barn? Why not figure all this out _before_ converting to xts? On April 12, 2023 12:29:49 PM PDT, akshay kulkarni <akshay_e4 at hotmail.com> wrote: >Dear Rui, > Not working. I have entirely removed the column containing % but am still bootless: > >> head(coredata(INFYTX)) > INFY

?s 19:57 de 12/04/2023, akshay kulkarni escreveu: > Dear members, > I have an xts object: > >> head(INFYTX) > INFY Historical Data INFY Historical Data.1 INFY Historical Data.2 > 2003-04-16 "47.26" "44.28" "47.56" > 2003-04-17 "46.30" "44.92"

Dear members, I have an xts object: > head(INFYTX) INFY Historical Data INFY Historical Data.1 INFY Historical Data.2 2003-04-16 "47.26" "44.28" "47.56" 2003-04-17 "46.30" "44.92" "46.53" 2003-04-21 "45.82"

On 2024-09-05 4:23 p.m., Leo Mada via R-help wrote: > Dear R Users, > > Is this desired behaviour? > I presume it's a bug. > > atan(1i) > # 0+Infi > > tan(atan(1i)) > # 0+1i > > atan(1i) / 5 > # NaN+Infi There's no need to involve atan() and tan() in this: > (0+Inf*1i)/5 [1] NaN+Infi Why do you think this is a bug? Duncan Murdoch

> complex(real = 0, imaginary = Inf) [1] 0+Infi > Inf*1i [1] NaN+Infi >> complex(real = 0, imaginary = Inf)/5 [1] NaN+Infi See the Note in ?complex for the explanation, I think. Duncan can correct if I'm wrong. -- Bert On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 3:20?PM Leo Mada <leo.mada at syonic.eu> wrote: > Dear Bert, > > These...

Dear Bert, These behave like real divisions/multiplications: complex(re=Inf, im = Inf) * 5 # Inf+Infi complex(re=-Inf, im = Inf) * 5 # -Inf+Infi The real division / multiplication should be faster and also is well behaved. I was expecting R to do the real division/multiplication on a complex number. Which R actually does for these very particular cases; but not when only Im(x) is Inf. Sincerely,...

atan(1i) -> 0 + Inf i complex(1/5) -> 0.2 + 0i atan(1i) -> (0 + Inf i) * (0.2 + 0i) -> 0*0.2 + 0*0i + Inf i * 0.2 + Inf i * 0i infinity times zero is undefined -> 0 + 0i + Inf i + NaN * i^2 -> 0 + 0i + Inf i - NaN -> NaN + Inf i I am not sure how complex arithmetic could arrive at another answer. I advise against messing with infinities... use atan2() if you don't actually need complex arithmetic. On September 5...

Perhaps > Inf*1i [1] NaN+Infi clarifies why it is *not* a bug. (Boy, did that jog some long dusty math memories :-) ) -- Bert On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 2:48?PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: > On 2024-09-05 4:23 p.m., Leo Mada via R-help wrote: > > Dear R Users, > > > > Is this...

Dear R Users, Is this desired behaviour? I presume it's a bug. atan(1i) # 0+Infi tan(atan(1i)) # 0+1i atan(1i) / 5 # NaN+Infi There were some changes in handling of complex numbers. But it looks like a bug. Sincerely, Leonard [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

On 2024-09-05 6:12 p.m., Leo Mada wrote: > Dear Duncan, > > Here is also the missing information: > R version 4.4.1 (2024-06-14 ucrt) > Platform: x86_64-w64-mingw32/x64 > Running under: Windows 10 x64 (build 19045) > > Regarding the results: > atan(1i) > #?0+Infi > Re(atan(1i)) > # 0 > Im(atan(1i)) > #? Inf > > 0 + Inf i is a valid complex number: > tan(atan(1i)) > # 0+1i > > Inf / 5 > # Inf > > Note: atan(1i) / 5 should have generated 0 + Inf * 1i; even the explicit > complex number fails: > complex(re=0, im...

I expect that atan(1i) = (0 + infinity i) and that atan(1i)/5 = (0 + infinity i)/5 = (0 + infinity i). Here's what I get in C: (0,1) = (0, 1) atan((0,1)) = (0, inf) atan((0,1))/5 = (0, inf) Note the difference between I*infinity = (0,1)*infinity = (0*infinity,1*infinity) = (NaN,infinity) and (0,infinity)/5 = (0/5,infinity/5) =...

...rs are *right* in any other sense. On Fri, 6 Sept 2024 at 11:07, Jeff Newmiller via R-help <r-help at r-project.org> wrote: > > atan(1i) -> 0 + Inf i > complex(1/5) -> 0.2 + 0i > atan(1i) -> (0 + Inf i) * (0.2 + 0i) > -> 0*0.2 + 0*0i + Inf i * 0.2 + Inf i * 0i > infinity times zero is undefined > -> 0 + 0i + Inf i + NaN * i^2 > -> 0 + 0i + Inf i - NaN > -> NaN + Inf i > > I am not sure how complex arithmetic could arrive at another answer. > > I advise against messing with infinities... use atan2() if you don't actually need co...

On 2024-09-06 12:44 a.m., Richard O'Keefe wrote: > I expect that atan(1i) = (0 + infinity i) and that atan(1i)/5 = (0 + > infinity i)/5 = (0 + infinity i). > Here's what I get in C: > (0,1) = (0, 1) > atan((0,1)) = (0, inf) > atan((0,1))/5 = (0, inf) > > Note the difference between I*infinity = (0,1)*infinity = > (0*infinity,1*infinity) = (NaN,infinity)...

...> The thing is that real*complex, complex*real, and complex/real are not > "complex arithmetic" in the requisite sense. > The complex numbers are a vector space over the reals, Yes, but they _also_ are field (and as others have argued mathematically only have one infinity point), and I think here we are fighting with which definition should take precedence here. The English Wikipedia page is even more extensive and precise, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number (line breaking by me): " The complex numbers form a rich structure that is simultaneo...

...But there *is* an IEEE standard now, and even IBM mainframes offer IEEE-compliant arithmetic, so worrying about the sign of zero etc is not something we can really overlook these days. You are of course correct that the one-point compactification of the complex numbers involves adjoining just one infinity and that whacking IEEE infinities into complex numbers does not give you anything mathematically interesting (unless you count grief and vexation as "interesting" (:-)). Since R distinguishes between 0+Infi and NaN+Infi, it's not clear that the one-point compactification has any...

----- Forwarded message from Andrea Barisani <lcars at infis.univ.trieste.it> ----- Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 14:01:33 +0200 From: Andrea Barisani <lcars at infis.univ.trieste.it> To: openssh at openssh.com Subject: openssh 3.6.1_p2 problem with pam Hi, I've just updated to openssh 3.6.1_p2 and I notice this behaviour: # ssh -l lcars mybox [2 s...

Dear Experts, I need to calculate the cdf of the standard normal distribution, i.e. H(x) = 1/sqrt(2*pi) integral(exp(-z^2/2) dz), where z is b/w -infi to infi. I know there should be a way to do it in R, but did not know to do it. I'd appreciate any help you could offer. Charlie Liu Graduate student intern at EPA/ECO -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tu...

...l versions of NaN, but I hope that they all behave the same way.) The documentation suggests that a complex scalar in R is just a pair of numeric scalars, so we are not dealing with the Riemann sphere or any other usually-studied extension of the complex plane. Since R distinguishes various complex infinities (and seems to allow any combination of numeric values in real & imaginary parts), the usual mathematical answer for atan(1i) may no longer be relevant. The tangent function has an essential singularity at complex infinity (the compactification point in the Riemann sphere, which I conside...

Hi, i have a fairly large amount of genomic data. I have created a dataframe which has "Reference" as one column and "Variation" as another. I want to plot a ROC curve based on these 2 columns. I have serached the R manual but I could not understand. Can anybody help me with the R code for plotting ROC curve. Thnx ashu6886 -- View this message in context: