similar to: incorrect result (41/10-1/10)%%1 (PR#13863)

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, 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.

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

> > as.numeric(ImpVol[1,5,57]) == 0.0001 [1] FALSE > > as.numeric(ImpVol[1,5,57]) [1] 1e-04 > > 0.0001 [1] 1e-04 > Any tips? Thanks Sean R 2.15.3 windows 7

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, 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]]

> 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]]

Hi Everyone, as part of a larger script, I need to insert the result of a simple minus operation into an if statement. I have noticed that the precision that appear on the screen is not the precision in which R stores the result of the minus operation, and that this change alters the result of the if statement. For example, when running this simple script:   > a=0.90 > b=0.95 >

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

Hello, here is the version of R that I use : > version _ platform i486-pc-linux-gnu arch i486 os linux-gnu system i486, linux-gnu status major 2 minor 3.1 year 2006 month 06 day 01 svn rev 38247 language R version.string Version 2.3.1 (2006-06-01) And here is one of the sequences of

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

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:

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

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

Hi R, I have certain checkings, which gives FALSE, but actually it is true. Why does this happen? Note that the equations that I am checking below are not even the case of recurring decimals... > 1.4^2 == 1.96 [1] FALSE > 1.2^3==1.728 [1] FALSE Thanks in advance, Shubha Shubha Karanth | Amba Research Ph +91 80 3980 8031 | Mob +91 94 4886 4510 Bangalore * Colombo *

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 >

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

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 >

Why, in R, does (0.1 + 0.05) > 0.15 evaluate to True? What am I missing here? How can I ensure this (ostensibly incorrect) behavior doesn't introduce bugs into my code? Thanks for your time. Dave Mitchell [[alternative HTML version deleted]]