search for: ssinit

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "ssinit".

Did you mean: sysinit
2025 Jan 02
1
Possible issue in stats/arima.R package
...= 3) seasonal <- list(order = seasonal) else > stop("\'seasonal\' is of the wrong length") I think you're right about this one. > > 2. An unused 'mod' variable assignment at line 190: > > mod <- makeARIMA(trarma[[1]], trarma[[2]], Delta, kappa, SSinit) > > I am trying to confirm whether this is intended behavior or possibly an > overlooked detail. Could someone please clarify if the current logic is > correct? > In the R-devel source I see mod being used in the next statement: mod <- makeARIMA(trarma[[1L]], trarma[...
2025 Jan 02
1
Possible issue in stats/arima.R package
...seasonal) else >> stop("\'seasonal\' is of the wrong length") > > I think you're right about this one. > >> >> 2. An unused 'mod' variable assignment at line 190: >> >> mod <- makeARIMA(trarma[[1]], trarma[[2]], Delta, kappa, SSinit) >> >> I am trying to confirm whether this is intended behavior or possibly an >> overlooked detail. Could someone please clarify if the current logic is >> correct? >> > > In the R-devel source I see mod being used in the next statement: > > mo...
2025 Jan 02
1
Possible issue in stats/arima.R package
...the wrong length") it should be rather: if (length(order) == 3) seasonal <- list(order = seasonal) else stop("\'seasonal\' is of the wrong length") 2. An unused 'mod' variable assignment at line 190: mod <- makeARIMA(trarma[[1]], trarma[[2]], Delta, kappa, SSinit) I am trying to confirm whether this is intended behavior or possibly an overlooked detail. Could someone please clarify if the current logic is correct? Thank you. Best regards, Norbert Kuder [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
2025 Jan 02
2
Possible issue in stats/arima.R package
...of the wrong length") >> >> I think you're right about this one. >> >>> >>> 2. An unused 'mod' variable assignment at line 190: >>> >>> mod <- makeARIMA(trarma[[1]], trarma[[2]], Delta, kappa, SSinit) >>> >>> I am trying to confirm whether this is intended behavior or possibly an >>> overlooked detail. Could someone please clarify if the current logic is >>> correct? >>> >> >> In the R-devel source I see mod...