similar to: how to get all iterations if I meet NaN?

Dear R useRs, with the following piece of code i try to find the first value which can be calculated without warnings `test` <- function(a) { repeat { ## hide warnings suppressWarnings(log(a)) if (exists("last.warning", envir = .GlobalEnv)) { a <- a + 0.1 ## clear existing warnings rm("last.warning", envir = .GlobalEnv) }

This question is more out of curiosity than a complaint or suggestion, but I'm just wondering. The behavior of R on calculations that result in NaN seems a bit inconsistent. # this is expected: > 0/0 [1] NaN # but this gives a warning > sin(Inf) [1] NaN Warning message: In sin(Inf) : NaNs produced # and this again does not > exp(NaN) [1] NaN Conceptually, I like to think that R

As a side note, Splus makes sin(x) NA, with a warning, for abs(x)>1.6*2^48 (about 4.51e+14) because more than half the digits are incorrect in sin(x) for such x. E.g., in R we get: > options(digits=16) > library(Rmpfr) > sin(4.6e14) [1] -0.792253849684354 > sin(mpfr(4.6e14, precBits=500)) 1 'mpfr' number of precision 500 bits [1]

I am running R as an invisible subprocess in another program (RExcel). Using try I can catch errors and print the errors produced by an R statement. Is there a way to know if running a statement caused a warning message? last.warning gives me the last warning, but I do not have any indication what the statement was that caused the message. I can of course store last warning before I run a

Hi still yet again! I have the following code: > try(log(rnorm(25)),silent=TRUE) [1] -0.26396185 NaN NaN -0.13078069 -2.44997193 -2.15603971 NaN 0.94917495 0.07244544 NaN [11] -1.06341127 -0.42293099 -0.53769569 0.95134763 0.93403340 NaN -0.10502078 NaN 0.30283262 NaN [21] -0.11696872 -3.84122332 NaN NaN -0.12808690

Dear all, I am trying to avoid the warnings produced by: > x <- -2:2 > log(x) [1] NaN NaN -Inf 0.0000000 0.6931472 Warning message: production de NaN in: log(x) I thought that using ifelse would be a solution, but it is not the case: > ifelse(test = x < 0, yes = NaN, no = log(x)) [1] NaN NaN -Inf 0.0000000 0.6931472 Warning message: production

Why does the expression "(-8)^(1/3)" return NaN, instead of -2? This is not answered by http://cran.r-project.org/doc/FAQ/R-FAQ.html#Why-are-powers-of-negative-numbers-wrong_003f Thanks, Dave [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

The suppressMessages and suppressWarnings functions currently suppress all the message or warnings that are generated by the input expression. The ability to suppress only specific messages or warnings is sometimes useful, particularly for cases like file import where there are lots of things that can go wrong. Suppressing only messages that match a regular expression has rightly been rejected

Hi, The code below is giving me this error message: Error in while (err > eps) { : missing value where TRUE/FALSE needed In addition: Warning messages: 1: In dnbinom(x, size, prob, log) : NaNs produced 2: In dnbinom(x, size, prob, log) : NaNs produced I know from the help files that for dnbinom "Invalid size or prob will result in return value NaN, with a warning", but I am not able

Hello, Currently, determinant(A) calculates the determinant of 'A' by factorizing A=LU and computing prod(diag(U)) [or the logarithm of the absolute value]. The factorization is done by LAPACK routine DGETRF, which gives a status code INFO, documented [1] as follows: *> INFO is INTEGER *> = 0: successful exit *> < 0: if INFO = -i, the i-th

Hi guys. Check this out: > NaN +NA [1] NaN > NA + NaN [1] NA I thought "+" was commutative by definition. What's going on? > R.version _ platform powerpc-apple-darwin6.8 arch powerpc os darwin6.8 system powerpc, darwin6.8 status major 1 minor 9.0 year 2004 month 04 day 12 language R > (Both give NA under linux, so it looks

On Linux when I compile R 2.10.0(devel) (src/main/arithmetic.c in particular) with gcc 3.4.5 using the flags -g -O2 I get noncommutative behavior when adding NA and NaN: > NA_real_ + NaN [1] NaN > NaN + NA_real_ [1] NA If I compile src/main/arithmetic.c without optimization (just -g) then both of those return NA. On Windows, using a precompiled R 2.8.1 from CRAN I get NA for

I have the following data: > dataset[2,"Sample.227"] [1] NaN 1558 Levels: -0.000 -0.001 -0.002 -0.003 -0.004 -0.005 -0.006 -0.007 -0.008- 0.009 ... 2.000 However, I'm not sure why this expression is coming back as FALSE: > dataset[2,"Sample.227"]=="NaN" [1] FALSE Similarly: > dataset[2,"Sample.227"]==NaN [1] NA It seems that since

hello, i have been using ccf() to look at the correlation between lightning and electrogamnetic data. for the most part it has worked exactly as expected. however, i have come across something that puzzles me a bit: > x <- c(1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0) > y <- c(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) > ccf(x, x, plot = FALSE) Autocorrelations of series 'X', by lag -4 -3 -2 -1 0

Hi! I noticed that cumsum behaves different than the other cumulative functions wrt. NaN values: > values <- c(1,2,NaN,1) > for ( f in c(cumsum, cumprod, cummin, cummax)) print(f(values)) [1] 1 3 NA NA [1] 1 2 NaN NaN [1] 1 1 NaN NaN [1] 1 2 NaN NaN The reason is that cumsum (in cum.c:33) contains an explicit check for ISNAN. Is that intentional? IMHO, ISNA would be better

Dear R What does NaN mean? I recently did a correlation on a batch of data for some reason it didn't like one column cor(sleep,use="complete.obs") BodyWt BrainWt SlowSleep ParaSleep TotalSleep BodyWt 1.00000000 0.95584875 -0.3936373 -0.07488845 -0.3428373 BrainWt 0.95584875 1.00000000 -0.3867947 -0.07427740 -0.3370815 SlowSleep -0.39363729

Dear R users, is the following OK? > max(NA, NaN) [1] NA > max(NaN, NA) [1] NA > pmax(NaN, NA) [1] NA > pmax(NA, NaN) [1] NaN ...or is it a bug? Documentation says that NA has a higher priority over NaN. Best regards, Michal Burda [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi, base::mean is not consistent in terms of handling NA/NaN. Mean should not depend on order of its arguments while currently it is. mean(c(NA, NaN)) #[1] NA mean(c(NaN, NA)) #[1] NaN I created issue so in case of no replies here status of it can be looked up at: https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17441 Best, Jan [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

I'm having trouble grokking complex NaN's. This first set examples using complex(re=NaN,im=NaN) give what I expect > Re(complex(re=NaN, im=NaN)) [1] NaN > Im(complex(re=NaN, im=NaN)) [1] NaN > Arg(complex(re=NaN, im=NaN)) [1] NaN > Mod(complex(re=NaN, im=NaN)) [1] NaN > abs(complex(re=NaN, im=NaN)) [1] NaN and so do the following > Re(complex(re=1,

Hi R-listers, I am using the package plyr. I am just trying to get the hatching success mean of each nesting event and have typed in the following and received the below results: > tapply(HSuccess, Aeventexhumed, mean) A B C 0.2156265 0.1288559 NaN What can I do about NaN? I should be able to get a result for event C because I was able to