search for: philosopphical

Hi, I was *very* surprised by this little trick for new players: mean() only considers its first argument! > mean(1,1,2) [1] 1 > mean(2,1,1) [1] 2 I found this very different behaviour to max(): > max(1,1,2) [1] 2 > max(2,1,1) [1] 2 Perhaps this is the wrong list to ask, but does anyone else think this a little on the interesting side? Is it not possible to detect a

...)" However, you do raise a good point. Reading mean.default(), I do not see how and when the "..." argument in mean() comes to play. Perhaps redefine mean to be mean <- function (..., trim = 0, na.rm = FALSE) so that it is similar to max, sum, range etc. But there might be a philosopphical counter argument for this as well. Functions like mean() and sd() are supposed to summarise a single vector whereas max, sum, range can work on several vectors by concatenating them into a single list. Consider max( c(1,2,3), c(2,3,4) ). Regards, Adai Matthew Walker wrote: > Hi, > &gt...