similar to: BUG in " == " ? (PR#9065)

Hi, there, I cannot get accurate value for calculation. for example: ld<-sqrt(1*0.05*0.95*0.05*0.95) 0.05*0.95-ld=-6.938894e-18 0.05*0.95-ld==0 is False. I met this problem in my program, how can I handle it. Thanks. xj.

Full_Name: jan hattendorf Version: 2.9.0 OS: XP Submission from: (NULL) (213.3.108.185) I get an incorrect result for (41/10-1/10)%%1 [1] 1 The error did not occur with other numbers than 41 (1, 11, 21, 31, 51, ...) test <- rep(NA, 1000) for(i in 1:1000){ test[i] <- i/10-1/10 } test[test%%1==0]

Hi, I'm having trouble with the "which" or the "seq" function, I'm not sure. Here's an example : > lat=seq(1,2,by=0.1) > lat [1] 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 > which(lat==1) [1] 1 > which(lat==1.1) [1] 2 > which(lat==1.2) [1] 3 > which(lat==1.3) [1] 4 > which(lat==1.4) [1] 5 > which(lat==1.5) [1] 6 >

Dear colleagues Please could someone kindly explain the following inconsistencies I've discovered when performing logical calculations in R: 8.8 - 7.8 > 1 > TRUE 8.3 - 7.3 > 1 > TRUE Thank you, Emma Jane [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi all, please see my code: > library(zoo) > a <- as.yearmon("March-2010", "%B-%Y") > b <- as.yearmon("May-2010", "%B-%Y") > > nn <- (b-a)*12 # number of months in between them > nn [1] 2 > as.integer(nn) [1] 1 What is the correct way to find the number of months between "a" and "b", still

Hi, I'm using the '%%' operator in some code, and am running into the following erroneous outcome: > 1.2 %% 0.2 [1] 0.2 Unless I'm very mistaken, the result should be 0 (indeed, 12 %% 2 does result in 0). Furthermore: > 1.20000000000000001 %% 0.2 [1] 0.2 > (1.2+1e17) %% .2 [1] 0 Warning message: probable complete loss of accuracy in modulus (Warning

Hi all, In checking my R codes, I encountered the following problem. Is there a way to fix this? I tried to specify options(digits=). I did not fix the problem. Thanks so much for your help! Hanna > cdf(pmass)[2,2]==pcum[2,2][1] FALSE> cdf(pmass)[2,2][1] 0.9999758> pcum[2,2][1] 0.9999758 [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Dear R Helpers, I am trying to extract the modulus from divisions by a sequence of fractions. I noticed that %% seems to behave inconsistently (to my untutored eye), thus: > 0.1%%0.1 [1] 0 > 0.2%%0.1 [1] 0 > 0.3%%0.1 [1] 0.1 > 0.4%%0.1 [1] 0 > 0.5%%0.1 [1] 0.1 > 0.6%%0.1 [1] 0.1 > 0.7%%0.1 [1] 0.1 > 0.8%%0.1 [1] 0 > 0.9%%0.1 The modulus for 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 0.8 is

Do you heve any idea why I get after this instruction everywhere false? > seq (0, 1, by=0.1) == 0.3 [1] FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE But after different step it's ok: > seq(0, 1, by=0.1) == 0.4 [1] FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE -- View this message in context:

> length(sample(25000, 25000*(1-.55))) [1] 11249 > 25000*(1-.55) [1] 11250 > length(sample(25000, 11250)) [1] 11250 > length(sample(25000, 25000*.45)) [1] 11250 So the question is, why do I get 11249 out of the first command and not 11250? I can't figure this one out. Thanks Cory [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hello dear r-help group I am turning for you for help with FAQ number 7.31: "Why doesn't R think these numbers are equal?" http://cran.r-project.org/doc/FAQ/R-FAQ.html#Why-doesn_0027t-R-think-these-numbers-are-equal_003f *My story* is this: I wish to run many lm predictions and need to have them run fast. Using predict.lm is relatively slow, so I tried having it run faster by

With floating point numbers I'm seeing 'cut' putting values in the wrong bands. An example below places 0.3 in (0.3,0.6] i.e. 0.3 > 0.3. > x = 1:5*.1 > x [1] 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 > cut(x, br=c(0,.3,.6)) [1] (0,0.3] (0,0.3] (0.3,0.6] (0.3,0.6] (0.3,0.6] Levels: (0,0.3] (0.3,0.6] I'm sure this is probably the same issue documented in the FAQ (7.31 Why doesn't R

Hi, Check the FAQ 7.31 https://cran.rstudio.com/doc/FAQ/R-FAQ.html#Why-doesn_0027t-R-think-these-numbers-are-equal_003f And read the posting guide too... https://www.r-project.org/posting-guide.html HTH, Ivan -- Dr. Ivan Calandra TraCEr, Laboratory for Traceology and Controlled Experiments MONREPOS Archaeological Research Centre and Museum for Human Behavioural Evolution Schloss Monrepos 56567

Hi, I am not sure if this is just me using R (R-2.3.1 and R-2.4.0) in the wrong way or if there is a more serious bug. I was having problems getting some calculations to add up so I ran the following tests: > (2.34567 - 2.00000) == 0.34567 <------- should be true [1] FALSE > (2.23-2.00) == 0.23 <------- should be true [1] FALSE > 4-2==2 [1] TRUE > (4-2)==2 [1] TRUE >

Where is my error?? I have a strange behaviour in R, looks like type conversions are messed = up. Maybe i just make a stupid mistake, but help would be appreciated. To reproduce: expected: > typeof(3) [1] "double" > as.integer(3) [1] 3 > typeof((0.3/0.1)) [1] "double" !!!! strange: > as.integer((0.3/0.1)) [1] 2 also for trunc: >trunc(c(5,7)) [1] 5 7

Hi, I apologize if there is a simple answer to this question that I've missed. I did search the mailing list but I might not have used the right keywords. Why does sum(A3^2) give the result of 1, but sum(A3^2)==1 give the result of FALSE? > A3<-matrix(nrow=3,c(1/(2^.5),1/(2^.5),0)) > A3 [,1] [1,] 0.7071068 [2,] 0.7071068 [3,] 0.0000000 > sum(A3^2) [1] 1 >

Using the following version of R: > R version 2.4.1 (2006-12-18) installed using apt-get on a Debian/Sarge AMD64 system with the following entry in /etc/apt/sources.lists: deb http://www.stats.bris.ac.uk/R/bin/linux/debian/ stable/ The problem: I'm seeing strange results in a integer calculation as follows: > choose(11,6) > [1] 462 > as.integer(choose(11,6)) > [1] 461

Full_Name: Suzi Alves Camey Version: 2.7.2 OS: Submission from: (NULL) (143.54.37.254) Using the commands bellow I expected that the answer is TRUE, but it is FALSE! P_exposicao=.9 (1-P_exposicao)==.1

Full_Name: Attila Lengyel Version: 2.8.0 OS: WinXP Submission from: (NULL) (81.182.224.160) > -0.3+0.1+0.1+0.1 [1] 2.775558e-17

To the R development team: First of all, thank you so much for maintaining wonderful R software. Perhaps, Dr. Ahn has just reported an error on the wilcox.test() function, and suggesting that an error may arise from abs() and rank(). I just had a quick check that the problem may come from the precision of the results of arithmetic functions. 87.7-89.1+1.4 # > 87.7-89.1+1.4 # [1]