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...