similar to: Help plase with simple loop

This might be a trivial question, but I would appreciate if anybody could suggest an elegant way of plotting a function such as the following (a simple distribution function): F(x) = 0 if x<=0 =(x^2)/2 if 0<x<=1 =2x-((x^2)/2)-1 if 1<x<=2 =1 if x>2 This is just an example. In this case it is a continuous function. But how to do it in general in an elegant way.

Hi All, I'd like to build a package for the community that replicates the output produced by SAS "proc varclus". According to the SAS documentation, the first few steps are: 1. Find the first two principal components. 2. Perform an orthoblique rotation (quartimax rotation) on eigenvectors. 3. Assign each variable to the rotated component with which it has the higher squared

Dear List, I'm trying to solve this simple optimization problem in R. The parameters are the exponents to the matrix mm. The constraints specify that each row of the parameter matrix should sum to 1 and their product to 0. I don't understand why the constraints are not satisfied at the solution. I must be misinterpreting how to specify the constrains somehow. library(alabama) ff <-

I'm using specify.model for the sem package. I can't figure out how to represent the residual errors for the observed variables for a CFA model. (Once I get this working I need to add some further constraints.) Here is what I've tried: model.sa <- specify.model() F1 -> X1,l11, NA F1 -> X2,l21, NA F1 -> X3,l31, NA F1 -> X4,l41, NA F1 -> X5, NA, 0.20

Dear users, I'll appreciate your help with this (hopefully) simple problem. I have a model object which was fitted to inputs X1, X2, X3. Now, I'd like to use this object to make predictions on a new data set where only X1 and X2 are available (just use the estimated coefficients for these variables in making predictions and ignoring the coefficient on X3). Here's my attempt but, of

I am trying to calculate the regression for the follwing input data stored in 'data.txt' file.I am reading this and storing it in the variable i .then i am trying to get the predicted value using f1 as dependent and others f2....f10 as independent variables.It is giving the following error. Also i want that i shoul get one predicted value for each row(y). What should i do. Please help me

Dear group, Is there a way I could avoid the sort of duplication illustrated below? i.e., I have the same dplyr::summarise function on different group_by arguments. So I'd like to create a single summarise function that could be applied to both. My attempt below fails. df <- data.frame(matrix(rnorm(40), 10, 4), f1 = gl(3, 10, labels = letters[1:3]), f2 =

Hi, Suppose I have a vector: > names.select [1] "Idd13" "Idd14" "Idd8.12" "Idd7" automatically generated by some selection criteria. Now, if I have a data frame with many variables, of which the variables in "names.select" are also variables from the data frame. e.g. > all.df[1:5,] Mouse Idd5 Idd6.19.20 Idd13 Idd14 Idd8.12

Hello, I would appreciate if someone could help me resolve the following: 1. df1[!is.na( X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5),][,1:5] # This does not work 2. Is these message harmful? The following object(s) are masked from 'df1 (position 3)': X1, X2, X3, X4, X5 Thanks, Pradip Muhuri #Reproducible Example set.seed(5) df1<-data.frame(matrix(sample(c(1:10,NA),100,replace=TRUE),ncol=5))

Hi Lars I am not very sure what you really want. However, I am suggesting the following code that enables (1) to obtain the full summary of your data and (2) retrieve only mean of X values as function of factors f1 and f2. library(tidyverse) library(psych) df <- data.frame(matrix(rnorm(40), 10, 4), f1 = gl(3, 10, labels = letters[1:3]), f2 = gl(3, 10, labels

Hi Lars, Two comments: 1. You can achieve what you want with a slight modification of your definition of s(), using the hint from the error message that you need an argument '.': s <- function(.) { dplyr::summarise(., x1m = mean(X1), x2m = mean(X2), x3m = mean(X3), x4m = mean(X4)) } 2. You have not given a great test case in

Hi Has anyone used R to conduct confirmatory factor analysis? This email pertains to use of SEM. For context consider an example: the basic idea is that there are a bunch of observables variables (say study habbits, amount of time reading in the bus, doing homework, helping other do homework, doing follow-up on errors etc.) and one believes that all these variables maybe measured by two or

Dear R-List, (I am not sure whether this list is the right place for my question...) I have a dataframe df.cfa

Dear R-users, I am facing problem with integrating in R a likelihood function which is a function of four parameters. It's giving me the result at the end but taking more than half an hour to run. I'm wondering is there any other efficient way deal with. The following is my code. I am ready to provide any other description of my function if you need to move forward.

I am having great difficulty plotting what should be a simple graph. I have measured 1 'y' and 5 'x' variables in each of two groups. Linear regression shows significant differences in the slopes of the regression for each 'x' variable between the two groups. All that I want to do is to plot one graph that shows the scatterplot for the three groups (each group represented

I have a sparse contingency table (most cells are 0): > xtabs(~.,data[,idx:(idx+4)]) , , x3 = 1, x4 = 1, x5 = 1 x2 x1 1 2 3 1 0 0 31 2 0 0 112 3 0 0 94 , , x3 = 2, x4 = 1, x5 = 1 x2 x1 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 , , x3 = 3, x4 = 1, x5 = 1 x2 x1 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 , , x3 = 1, x4

Hi R-helpers, I have a character object called dd that has 32 elements each of which is a model formula contained within quotation marks. Here's what it looks like: > dd [1] "lm(y ~ 1,data=Cement)" "lm(y ~ X,data=Cement)" "lm(y ~ X1,data=Cement)" [4] "lm(y ~ X2,data=Cement)" "lm(y ~

Hello all I have a feeling this is very simple......but I am not sure how to do it My boss has two variables, one is an average of 4 numbers, the other is an average of 3 of those numbers i.e var1 = (X1 + X2 + X3 + X4)/4 var2 = (X1 + X2 + X3)/3 all of the X variables are supposed to be measuring similar constructs not surprisingly, these are highly correlated (r = .98), the question is how

I posted this one as an R bug (https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14767), but Prof. Ripley says I'm premature, and I should raise the question here. Here's the behavior I assert is a bug: The output from delete.response on a terms object alters the formula by removing the dependent variable. It removes the response from the "variables" attribute and it changes

Hi, Using S=1000 and simdata <- replicate(S, generate(3000)) #If you want both "m1" and "m0" #here the missing values are 0 res1<-sapply(seq_len(ncol(simdata.psm1)),function(i) {x1<-merge(simdata.psm0[,i],simdata.psm1[,i],all=TRUE); x1[is.na(x1)]<-0; x1}) res1[,997:1000] #????? [,1]???????? [,2]???????? [,3]???????? [,4]??????? #x1??? Numeric,3000 Numeric,3000