similar to: matrix coercion, logical -> character

Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil.kjernsmo@astro.uio.no> writes: > On 8 Nov 2000, Peter Dalgaard BSA wrote: > > >I'm not at all happy with this: > > > >Solaris : > >> range(sapply(1:2000, function(n) mean(rpois(10000, 15.0)))) > >[1] 15.0524 15.3403 > > Hm, OK, so it isn't just me.... I guess it is time to file a bug report, > should I do it,

Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil.kjernsmo@astro.uio.no> writes: > On 8 Nov 2000, Peter Dalgaard BSA wrote: > > >> > range(sapply(1:2000, function(n) mean(rpois(10000, c(15,15+1e-8))))) > >> [1] 14.8692 15.1200 > > > >AHA! Spotted, I think. > > Wow! Great, that was fast! > > >It is possible to return from rpois in step N, > >in which case

jlindsey at alpha.luc.ac.be writes: > The following is a bug or feature in recent versions. Try the > following with a clean workspace: > > y <- cbind(rpois(20,4),rpois(20,4)) > df <- data.frame(y=y,x=rnorm(20)) > colnames(df) > colnames(model.frame(y~x,data=df)) > > Now start over with a clean workspace and try > > df <-

A new version is available from ftp.stat.auckland.ac.nz:/pub/R/R-0.61.tgz and soon from CRAN mirrors everywhere. As usual, there is at least one unfixed bug in the release, but this time, we hope that we have set things up so that future bugfixes can be released more or less immediately. Merry Christmas! The R core team. **********************************************************************

A new version is available from ftp.stat.auckland.ac.nz:/pub/R/R-0.61.tgz and soon from CRAN mirrors everywhere. As usual, there is at least one unfixed bug in the release, but this time, we hope that we have set things up so that future bugfixes can be released more or less immediately. Merry Christmas! The R core team. **********************************************************************

Dear all, I'm a bit confused about the output from functions that generates random values, e.g. rpois. I'm using 0.65.1 on Digital UNIX alphaev6. If I say > rpois(10,5) output is not unexpectedly: [1] 4 6 5 7 6 5 2 2 5 3 but I figured that if I go: > rpois(10,1:10) I would get a 10x10 matrix as output, with random values for each of the vector elements in the row vectors, but

I'm not sure exactly where to point my finger with this one, but there is a nasty surprise to the unsuspecting user. There is no check on the length of the vector passed in the pch= argument to plot, it is just recycled as necessary: plot(1:10,1:10,pch=1:2) gives alternating circles and triangles. The nasty bits come up especially with plot.formula: x<-1:10;y<-1:10

R-0.61.2.tgz is now available from the Auckland FTP site, from where it should spread to the CRAN sites during the next day or two. Unless you're in a big hurry or actually living in New Zealand, please don't get it from Auckland. There is also an R-0.61.1-0.61.2.diff.gz which can be used to patch an existing R-0.61.1. Instructions for patching are in the VERSION file in same directory.

R-0.61.2.tgz is now available from the Auckland FTP site, from where it should spread to the CRAN sites during the next day or two. Unless you're in a big hurry or actually living in New Zealand, please don't get it from Auckland. There is also an R-0.61.1-0.61.2.diff.gz which can be used to patch an existing R-0.61.1. Instructions for patching are in the VERSION file in same directory.

On 2020-01-19 09:34, Benjamin Tyner wrote: >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Hello, All: >> >> >> ? ????? Consider: >> >> >> Browse[2]> set.seed(1) >> Browse[2]> rpois(9, 1e10) >> NAs produced[1] NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA >> >> >> ? ????? Should this happen? >>

So imagine rpois is changed, such that the storage mode of its return value is sometimes integer and sometimes numeric. Then imagine the case where lambda is itself a realization of a random variable. Do we really want the storage mode to inherit that randomness? On 1/19/20 10:47 AM, Avraham Adler wrote: > Maybe there should be code for 64 bit R to use long long or the like? > > On

The R core team proudly presents: \||||||||/ -R 0.61.1- /||||||||\ I've just rolled together a new patch release. It's available from the Auckland repository now, but please do not get it from there unless you are in a terrible hurry. It should find its way to the main CRAN site in Vienna this evening and then to the rest of the CRAN sites. There's also a

The R core team proudly presents: \||||||||/ -R 0.61.1- /||||||||\ I've just rolled together a new patch release. It's available from the Auckland repository now, but please do not get it from there unless you are in a terrible hurry. It should find its way to the main CRAN site in Vienna this evening and then to the rest of the CRAN sites. There's also a

Hello, All: ????? Consider: Browse[2]> set.seed(1) Browse[2]> rpois(9, 1e10) NAs produced[1] NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ????? Should this happen? ????? I think that for, say, lambda>1e6, rpois should return rnorm(., lambda, sqrt(lambda)). ????? For my particular Monte Carlo, I have replaced my call to rpois with a call to the following: ?rpois. <- function(n,

????? This issue arose for me in simulations to estimate confidence, prediction, and tolerance intervals from glm(., family=poisson) fits embedded in a BMA::bic.glm fit using a simulate.bic.glm function I added to the development version of Ecfun, available at "https://github.com/sbgraves237/Ecfun".? This is part of a vignette I'm developing, available at

Hi there, Could somebody help me disect this legacy R script I inherited at work, I have two questions: 1. I've tried to upgrade our R version from 1.6.2 (yeah, I know), to R 2.0, but some of the lines in this script are not compatible with R 2.0, could someone help me figure out where the problem is? 2. the jpeg generated (attached) seems to be off on some of the data, is there a better way

On 2020-01-19 13:01, Avraham Adler wrote: > Crazy thought, but being that a sum of Poissons is Poisson in the sum, > can you break your ?big? simulation into the sum of a few smaller > ones? Or is the order of magnitude difference just too great? ????? I don't perceive that as feasible.? Once I found what was generating NAs, it was easy to code a function to return pseudo-random

Peter Dalgaard BSA wrote: > > gregory_r_warnes@groton.pfizer.com writes: > > > Under R 1.3.0 on Solaris and Windows NT there seems to be a bug in == when > > applied to elements of a list, particularly when one of the elements is of > > mode integer: > > > > > list(1) == list(1) > > [1] FALSE > > > 1 == list(1) > >

Hi all, I've got the following error message in using e1071 svm routine... Could anybody please help me? Thank you! --------------------------------- model <- svm(y=factor(mytraindata[, 1]), x=mytraindata[, -1], probability=T) Error in if (any(co)) { : missing value where TRUE/FALSE needed In addition: Warning message: In FUN(newX[, i], ...) : NAs introduced by coercion

Hello all, Please review the following simple code: # make a factor: x <- factor(c("one", "two")) # what should be the output to the following expression? c(x, "3") # <=== ???? # I expected it to be as the output of: c(as.character(x), "3") # But in fact, the output is what would happen if we had ran the next line: