similar to: Unexpected behaviour of seq(from,to,by) (PR#14057)

Full_Name: alex Version: 2.8.1 OS: Ubuntu / MacOSX Submission from: (NULL) (162.38.183.51) > 0.6==0.6 [1] TRUE > seq(0,1,0.1)==0.4 [1] FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE > seq(0,1,0.1)==0.6 [1] FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE > seq(0,1,0.1)==0.8 [1] FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE

Perhaps somebody could clarify for me if the following is a floating point matter or otherwise, and how am I to correct for it? > floor(100*.1) [1] 10 > 100*(1.0-.9) [1] 10 > floor(100*(1-0.9)) [1] 9 Thanks! Michael _______________________________________________________ Michael Folkes Salmon Stock Assessment Canadian Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans Pacific Biological Station

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:

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Roger.Bergande at swisslife.ch Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:51:12 +0200 Subject: .Call and .C arguments To: bergarog at gmail.com Dear List My question is about .C and .Call I was experimenting with the .C and .Call interface as I came across the following behaviour. The passed values are not the same in C. I 'm calling a function in C with

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]

Hello! I stumbled upon something odd that took a while to track down, and I wanted to run it by here to see if I should submit a bug report. For randomly generated numbers (from a variety of distributions) rounding them to specifically 2 digits and then multiplying them by 100 produces strange results on about 8% of cases. The problematic numbers display as I would have expected, but do not

Is this a bug somewhere? The format function, using a specific number of digits, doesn't give sensible results: R> set.seed(2);print(x<-rexp(5)) [1] 1.86535 0.40475 0.14665 1.73071 0.08953 R> format(x,digits=1) [1] "1.87" "0.40" "0.15" "1.73" "0.09" R> format(x,digits=2) [1] "1.87" "0.40" "0.15"

The example here puzzles me. It seems like the < operator doesn't work as expected. > l <- 0.6 > u <- seq(0.4, 0.7, 0.1) > u [1] 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 > mygrid <- expand.grid("l" = l, "u" = u) > mygrid l u 1 0.6 0.4 2 0.6 0.5 3 0.6 0.6 4 0.6 0.7 > mygridcollapsed <- mygrid[mygrid$l < mygrid$u, ] > mygridcollapsed l u 3 0.6 0.6 4

Hi all, Is there any problem of precision when using seq?. For example: x<- seq(0,4,0.1) x[4]=0.3 BUT: x[4]-0.3=5.551115e-17 It means when I use this condition within an if clause, it does not find values with 0.3 for x[4] as it is not precisely 0.3. Is there any bug in seq() ? -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/Inconsistency-using-seq-tp4633739.html Sent from

Your :method is in the wrong place, it belongs after the first hash, look at the docs for the form reote for -----Original Message----- From: Raimon Fs <rails-mailing-list-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 5:08 PM To: rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Subject: [Rails] Re: form_remote_for NOT passing param: I want put and I get

Hello again, It''s possible to use before_filter in the application_controller, and exclude for some methods from other controllers ? i have a before_filter in application_controller that checks if the user is logged, if the time hasn''t expired, ... and I want to exclude some methods of this check, like the login. This ''login'' belongs to other controller. I

I was a bit puzzed by: > formatC(6.65,format="f",digits=1) [1] "6.6" So I experimented and found: > formatC(6.6500000000000001,format="f",digits=1) [1] "6.6" > formatC(6.650000000000001,format="f",digits=1) [1] "6.7" > round(6.6500000000000001,1) [1] 6.7 > round(6.650000000000001,1) [1] 6.7 > version

I do: x<-rnorm(1000) quantile(x,c(.025,.975)) 2% 98% -1.844753 1.931762 Since I want to find a 95% confidence interval, I take the .025 and .975 quantiles. HOWEVER R says I have the 2% (not 2.5%) and 98% (not 97.5%) points. Is it just rounding the printed 2% and 98%, or is it REALLY finding .02 and .98 points instead of .025 and .975? Thanks for any help. Bill Simpson

I do: x<-rnorm(1000) quantile(x,c(.025,.975)) 2% 98% -1.844753 1.931762 Since I want to find a 95% confidence interval, I take the .025 and .975 quantiles. HOWEVER R says I have the 2% (not 2.5%) and 98% (not 97.5%) points. Is it just rounding the printed 2% and 98%, or is it REALLY finding .02 and .98 points instead of .025 and .975? Thanks for any help. Bill Simpson

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 >

Is the code below showing a bug in Crosstable()? My expectation was that the values produced by xtabs were rounded instead of truncated: library(gmodels) abc <- c("a", "a", "b", "b", "c", "c") def <- c("d", "e", "f", "f", "d", "e") wgt <- c(0.8, 0.6, 0.4, 0.5, 1.4, 1.3)

Hi all I am not a C programmer, but I am trying to understand formatC to get consistent printing of reals to a given number of significant digits. Can someone please explain this to me? These first three give what I expect on reading ?formatC: > formatC(0.0059999, digits=2,format="fg",flag="#") [1] "0.0060" > formatC(0.59999,

As a sequel to my previous mail on cut, formatC does not produce what I have been taught is significant digits: > x <- c(1.0793,1.0796, 11.0954, 11.0736 ) > formatC(x,digits=3,format="g") [1] "1.08" "1.08" "11.1" "11.1" (3,3,3,3) significant digits OK > formatC(x,digits=3,format="f") [1] "1.079"

I have a four-digit string I want to convert to five digits. Take the following frame: zip 2108 60321 60321 22030 91910 I need row 1 to read '02108'. This forum directed me to formatC previously (thanks!) That usually works but, for some reason, it's not in this instance. Neither of the syntaxes below change '2108' to '02108.' The values in cand_receipts[,1] are of

Hola Tengo un problema con Sweave y xtable, concretamente quiero cambiar el color según un criterio, creo que es más fácil explicar con los siguientes ejemplos, uno puede correr directamente porque es R, al siguiente código hay que guardarlo como Rnw, y luego puede ser corrido en R, donde seguramente al correr este se darán cuenta de mis dos problemas porque saltan al abrir el pdf que se obtiene