similar to: Another good optimization (for PPC only, though)

Dear all, I would like to draw a dendrogram and mark some parts/branches (by using "segments") including their labels. If I draw it without specifying the length of x axix, I am able to do that (as in My dendrogram 1 of the following codes). However, if I want to specify the x axix, I am not able to draw marking line (by using "segments") including labels (as in My dendrogram

This patch adds two files, fast_math.[ch]. These files includes a couple faster versions of the libm routines that don't provide all the semantics and accuracy of the IEEE versions (but are still pretty darn accurate). Typically there are situations in which full precision is not necessary and the following patch tries to apply this approach. I don't know whether this patch will

Hi! I have some questions about R function. I try to write a function for multi-returns. The function code is as attachment. dgp.par<-function(ai, bi, t, n) { t0<-t+20 y0<-matrix(0, nr=t0, nc=n) y0[1,]<-ai/(1-bi) for(tt in 2:t0) { y0[tt,]<-ai+bi*y0[tt-1,]+rnorm(n, 0, 1) } y<-y0[21:t0,] x<-y0[20:t0-1,] z<-y0[19:t0-2,] z<-z[2:t,] dy<-y[2:t,]-y[1:t-1,]

Hello dear members of R-help and R-core mailing list, I am not sure if this request is a "ticket" that should be filled somewhere outside the mailing list. If so, I apologize for not doing and would like to know where I should have filled it. And to the subject matter: I would like to use a command like this: plot(c(1,8), 1:2, type="n") polygon(1:7, c(2,1,2,NA,2,1,2),

Hello dear members of R-help and R-core mailing list, I am not sure if this request is a "ticket" that should be filled somewhere outside the mailing list. If so, I apologize for not doing and would like to know where I should have filled it. And to the subject matter: I would like to use a command like this: plot(c(1,8), 1:2, type="n") polygon(1:7, c(2,1,2,NA,2,1,2),

I suggest a simple enhancement to segments() and arrows() to facilitate drawing horizontal and vertical segments -- set default values for the second x and y arguments equal to the first set. This is handy, especially when the expressions for coordinates are long. Compare: Segments: < function (x0, y0, x1 = x0, y1 = y0, col = par("fg"), lty = par("lty"), --- > function

I have a function in R^2, say f <- function(x,y) { ...skipped } I want to plot this function using contour, persp. wireframe, etc. I know that the function has a global minimum at (x0, y0) The naive approach is to evaluate the function on the outer product of two arrays, like this: sx <- c(seq(-3, x0, len = 100), seq(x0, 3, len = 100)[-1]) sy <- c(seq(-3, y0, len = 100), seq(y0, 3,

x0=rnorm(100) y0=rpois(100,3)+1 ind=as.data.frame(table(y0)) ind1=ind[,1] ind2=ind[,2] phi=NULL for (i in 1:length(ind2)){ phi[i]=sum(x0[y0==ind1[i]])/ind2[i] } [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hello, I'm having more trouble with interfacing with C code. I have a function in C that will return the result of its computation as 3 arrays. The signature of the function is as follows: void lorenz_run(double x0, double y0, double z0, double h, int steps, double *res_x, double *res_y, double *res_z) The function works, as I've tested it from within C itself and the results

I was teaching new R users to make some fun graphs. I had some arrows examples worked up we came across a problem. The arrows function ignores 2nd and following elements of vectors given as code an angle. Would you please consider 1) allowing vectors for code and angle, or 2) returning an error or warning when user mistakenly supplies a vector for those parameters? When code like this is

Dear R users... I made this by help of one of R users. _________________________________________________________________ X=matrix(seq(1,4), 2 , 2) B=matrix(c(0.6,1.0,2.5,1.5) , 2 , 2) func <- function(i,y0,j) { y0*exp(X[i,]%*%B[,j]) } list1 <- expand.grid( i=c(1,2) , y0=c(1,2) , j=c(1,2) ) results <- do.call( func , list1 )

Dear all, I am trying to use "do.call", but I don't think I totally understand this function. Here is an simple example. -------------------------------------------- > B <- matrix(c(.5,.1,.2,.3),2,2) > B [,1] [,2] [1,] 0.5 0.2 [2,] 0.1 0.3 > x <- c(.1,.2) > X <- cbind(1,x) > X x [1,] 1 0.1 [2,] 1 0.2 > > lt <-

Hello everyone, I have come across a bit of an odd problem: I am currently analysing data PCR reaction data of which part is behaving exponential. I would like to fit the exponential part to the following: y0 + alpha * E^t In which Y0 is the groundphase, alpha a fluorescence factor, E the efficiency of the reaction & t is time (in cycles) I can get this to work for most of my reactions,

Uwe Ligges suggested I post this on R-bugs as a wishlist item with a proposed patch. R considers zero-length arguments to segments() to be an error. I would like R to allow this and to return without an error. It occurs naturally in settings like valid <- c(FALSE, FALSE, FALSE) segments(x0[valid], y0[valid], x1[valid], y1[valid]) For what it may be worth, S-Plus does not consider

Hi, Yes, I can see why that would not work. The sinking algorithm in SimplifyCFG isn't particularly clever. In particular it can't reason about memory ordering and aliasing. In unswitch1(), it can identify that the stores correlate because the correlating stores appear in the same relative source order. In unswitch2() they have been permuted, and the algorithm cannot deal with this. This

Full_Name: Michael Hoffman Version: 2.1.0 OS: Linux (Fedora Core 3, kernel 2.6.11-1.14_FC3) Submission from: (NULL) (193.62.199.8) help(arrows) says: """ arrows(x0, y0, x1, y1, length = 0.25, angle = 30, code = 2, col = par("fg"), lty = NULL, lwd = par("lwd"), xpd = NULL) ... If 'code=2' an arrowhead is drawn at

Hi all!   My question in about using mapply instead for loop. Below is a example with for loop: Is it posible to give same results with mapply function?   Thanks for help!   OV   x <- 1:10 y <- 1:10 xyz <- data.frame(expand.grid(x,y)[1], expand.grid(x,y)[2], z = rnorm(100)) names(xyz) <- c("x", "y", "z") head(xyz) size <- 2 output <- NULL   ### for

Dear all, I am using the nlsLM function to fit a Lorentzian function to my experimental data. The LM algorithm should allow to specify limits, but the upper limit appears not to work as expected in my code. The parameter 'w', which is peak width at half maximuim always hits the upper limit if the limit is specified. I would expect the value to be in-between the upper and lower limit with

Dear all, Even though one of R users answered my question, I cannot understand, so I re-ask this question. I am trying to use "do.call", but I don't think I totally understand this function. Here is an simple example. -------------------------------------------- > B <- matrix(c(.5,.1,.2,.3),2,2) > B [,1] [,2] [1,] 0.5 0.2 [2,] 0.1 0.3 > x <- c(.1,.2) >

Hi, I am using the uniroot function in order to carry out a bivariate Monte Carlo simulation using the logistics model. I have defined the function as: BV.FV <- function(x,y,a,A) (((x^(-a^-1)+y^(-a^-1))^(a-1))*(y^(a-1/a))*(exp(-((1^(-a^-1)+y^(-a^-1))^a)+y^-1)))-A and the procedure is as follows: Randomly generate values of A~(0,1), y0 = -(lnA)^-1 Where: A=Pr{X<xi|Y=yi-1} and a is the