Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "sigfigs".
Did you mean:
sigdigs
2007 May 14
1
round(#, digits=x) unreliable for x=2 (PR#9682)
Full_Name: Scott Wilkinson
Version: 2.3.1
OS: WinXP Pro
Submission from: (NULL) (140.253.203.4)
In the example below round() does not report to the specified number of digits
when the last digit to be reported is zero: Compare behaviour for 0.897575 and
0.946251. Ditto for signif(). The number of sigfigs is ambiguous unless the
reader knows this behaviour. Is this a bug or intended behaviour? Is there a
work-around?
#Example code:
number <- 0.897575 # this one isn't reported to 2 decimal places 0.90 as
expected
#number <- 0.946251 # when the last reported digit is non-zero it gives expec...
2008 Jun 02
6
significant digits (PR#9682)
...>On 13/05/2007 8:46 PM, scott.wilkinson at csiro.au wrote:
>>
>> In the example below round() does not report to the specified number of
>> digits when the last digit to be reported is zero: Compare behaviour for
>> 0.897575 and 0.946251. Ditto for signif(). The number of sigfigs is
>> ambiguous unless the reader knows this behaviour. Is this a bug or
>> intended behaviour? Is there a work-around?
>
> It's not a bug. It has nothing to do with round(), it is the way R
> prints numbers by default. If you ask to print 0.90, you'll get
>
> [...