search for: ml_posinf

...ML_ERR_return_NAN; but surely negative sd should always be an error? I'd be inclined to do if (sigma < 0) ML_ERR_return_NAN; if(!R_FINITE(sigma)) return R_D__0; if(!R_FINITE(x) && mu == x) return ML_NAN;/* x-mu is NaN */ if (sigma == 0) return (x == mu) ? ML_POSINF : R_D__0; x = (x - mu) / sigma; (Ping Martin...) -pd > On 7 Dec 2019, at 23:40 , Wang Jiefei <szwjf08 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Good question, I cannot speak for R's developers but I would like to > provide some information on the problem. Here are the first few lines...

...Functions' pages 935 and 928 Mikael double qpois(double p, double lambda, int lower_tail, int log_p) { double mu, sigma, gamma, z, y; #ifdef IEEE_754 if (ISNAN(p) || ISNAN(lambda)) return p + lambda; #endif if(!R_FINITE(lambda)) ML_ERR_return_NAN; R_Q_P01_boundaries(p, 0, ML_POSINF); if(lambda < 0) ML_ERR_return_NAN; if(lambda == 0) return 0; mu = lambda; sigma = sqrt(lambda); gamma = sigma; /* Note : "same" code in qpois.c, qbinom.c, qnbinom.c -- * FIXME: This is far from optimal [cancellation for p ~= 1, etc]: */ if(!lower_ta...

...If this is appropriate, the following patch should do the job: *** bessel_k.c Thu Oct 17 13:55:55 2002 --- bessel_k.c.dist Thu Oct 17 13:48:53 2002 *************** *** 216,224 **** ML_ERROR(ME_RANGE); *ncalc = *nb; for(i=0; i < *nb; i++) ! if (ex<=0) ! bk[i] = ML_POSINF; ! else bk[i]=0.0; return; } k = 0; --- 216,222 ---- ML_ERROR(ME_RANGE); *ncalc = *nb; for(i=0; i < *nb; i++) ! bk[i] = ML_POSINF; return; } k = 0; (By the way, the test for x<=0 seems inappropriate; it looks like x<0 is caught...

Hi, Apropos of a recent Inf question, I've previously wondered if dnorm "does the right thing" with dnorm(0, 0, -Inf) which gives zero. Should that be zero or NaN (or NA)? The help says "'sd < 0' is an error and returns 'NaN'" and since -Inf < 0 is TRUE, then... is this a bug? Thank you, Stephen Rochester, MN USA

...egative sd should always be an error? > I'd be inclined to do > if (sigma < 0) ML_ERR_return_NAN; > if(!R_FINITE(sigma)) return R_D__0; > if(!R_FINITE(x) && mu == x) return ML_NAN;/* x-mu is NaN */ > if (sigma == 0) > return (x == mu) ? ML_POSINF : R_D__0; > x = (x - mu) / sigma; > (Ping Martin...) I think you are spot on, Peter. All of this code has a longish history, with incremental border case improvements. Let's hope (somewhat unrealistically) this is the last one for dnorm(). NB: dlnorm() and some of the gamma/ch...

...(ISNAN(x) || ISNAN(mu) || ISNAN(sigma)) return x + mu + sigma; #endif if(!R_FINITE(sigma)) return R_D__0; if(!R_FINITE(x) && mu == x) return ML_NAN;/* x-mu is NaN */ if (sigma <= 0) { if (sigma < 0) ML_ERR_return_NAN; /* sigma == 0 */ return (x == mu) ? ML_POSINF : R_D__0; } .... } ``` You can clearly see where the problem is. I think either the document or the code needs a modification. Best, Jiefei On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 5:05 PM Weigand, Stephen D. via R-devel < r-devel at r-project.org> wrote: > Hi, > Apropos of a recent Inf quest...

...ved by removing the R_INLINE keyword. I can't see another solution, and reading these guidelines on inlining ( http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2003/03/inline.html ) leaves me no wiser. 2) IEEE arithmetic The standalone math library fails to compile, as the compiler chokes on the definition of ML_POSINF, ML_NEGINF and ML_NAN, e.g. > cc-1195 cc: ERROR File = mlutils.c, Line = 130 > The indicated floating-point operation result is out of range. > > double NA_REAL = ML_NAN; where ML_NAN is defined as (0.0 / 0.0) in nmath.h. The compiler flag -OPT:IEEE_NaN_inf=ON is supposed to e...