similar to: For numeric x, as.character(x) doesn't always match signif(x, 15)

printCoefmat(signif.legend =FALSE) does not work properly. The option "signif.legend = FALSE" is ignored as shown in the example below. cmat <- cbind(rnorm(3, 10), sqrt(rchisq(3, 12))) cmat <- cbind(cmat, cmat[,1]/cmat[,2]) cmat <- cbind(cmat, 2*pnorm(-cmat[,3])) colnames(cmat) <- c("Estimate", "Std.Err", "Z value", "Pr(>z)") #

PROBLEM `signif' does change to scientic notation at different levels depending on the number of significant digits in the input. This can generate tables where figures change ``irregularly'' from normal to scientific notation. PROPOSAL The change to the scientific notation should be made only if the figure in scientific notation - with potentially as

Hello, All: I'm getting different answers from "lapply(ts(1:2), length)", depending on what is attached, with nothing obviously masked. 1. Am I correct that the answer to "lapply(ts(1:2), length)" should be a list of length 2 consisting of "int 1" twice? This is what I get from R 3.0.2 with nothing else attached. If I've attached

Dear list, I'm trying to write a class for Gaussian error propagation of measured values and their (estimated) errors, > setClass("sec", representation(val="numeric", err="numeric")) I've already successfully implemented basic arithmetics using mostly the "Arith" group generics. But I'm running into trouble when trying to get signif() to

signif(.) is a <primitive> function. Unfortunately, I couldn't even find WHERE in the source, signif(.) is defined. Here are the symptoms: xmin <- .Machine $ double.xmin signif(xmin,3) #--> NA umach <- unlist(.Machine)[paste("double.x", c("min","max"), sep='')] for(dig in 1:10) {cat("dig=",dig,": ");

My question is about the "Signif. codes" , the output when I run matcoef =cbind(fit$par, se.coef,tval,2*(1-pnorm(abs(tval)))) dimnames(matcoef)=list(names(tval),c("Estimate","Std.Error","t value","pr(>|t|)")) cat("\nCoefficient(s):\n") printCoefmat(matcoef, digits=4, signif.stars = TRUE) Coefficient(s): Estimate

Hi Martin, I take your point - but I'd argue that significance stars are a clumsy solution to the very real problem that you outline, and their inclusion as a default sends a signal about their appropriateness that I would prefer R not to endorse. My preference (to the extent that it matters) would be to see the significance stars be an option but not a default one, and the addition of

Dear R-Devel, As I am sure many of you know, a special issue of The American Statistician just came out, and its theme is the [mis]use of P values and the many common ways in which they are abused. The lead editorial in that issue mentions the 2014 ASA guidelines on P values, and goes one step further, by now recommending that the words "statistically significant" and related simplistic

Hi, I was told to send this to the -devel list instead of posting to bugzilla. When round our signif are called with a single named argument, R does not check the name and runs the function with that named argument directly as the first argument, using 0.0 or 6.0 (6 in the case of signif) for the second argument. Not checking the argument name is at odds with how all other primitive functions

[Environment: Win Xp, Miktex 2.7, R 2.9.2] In an Sweave document, I'm displaying the results of car:::Anova() tests, that look like this in the generated .tex file: \begin{Soutput} Type III MANOVA Tests: Pillai test statistic Df test stat approx F num Df den Df Pr(>F) (Intercept) 1 0.86 90.38 4 60 <2e-16 *** --- Signif. codes: 0 ?***? 0.001 ?**? 0.01 ?*? 0.05 ?.? 0.1 ? ? 1

Dear all, I agree with both Russ and Terry that the significance stars option should default to FALSE. Here's what Sandy Weisberg and I say about significance starts in the current edition of the R Companion to Applied Regression: 'If you find the ?statistical-significance? asterisks that R prints to the right of the p-values annoying, as we do, you can suppress them, as we will in the

Hi, I recently spent quite a bit of time trouble shooting a function that I had written only to discover that the problem I was having was with the comparison operator. I assumed that the following would return TRUE: > testMean <- 82.8 + 0.1 > testMean [1] 82.9 > testMean == 82.9 [1] FALSE Apparently this has to do with deciml places. Look: > newTest <- 82.0 > newTest [1]

Hello. In my opinion the function signif(1.4,digits=3) should give 1.40 but actually gives 1.4. Is there a magic way to add the trailing digits back (and converting to chracter at the same time ?) Regards, Paul.

I read through the editorial. This is the one of the most mega-ultra-super-biased articles I've ever read. e.g. The authors encourage Baysian methods, and literally encourage subjective approaches. However, there's only one reference to robust methods and one reference to nonparametric methods, both of which are labelled as purely exploratory methods, which I regard as extremely

OK. I give up. I'll ask a stupid question. How do I get the $!#@*$ signif stars line printed by summaries to not look extremely bizarre in the latex produced by Sweave? For example, see p. 7 of http://www.stat.umn.edu/geyer/aster/library/aster/doc/tutor.pdf I can see what the problem is. R emits non-ascii characters (as it is supposed to do), Sweave puts them in the tex file, and

Hello, I previously submitted the below query to r-sig-geo, but have had no response. Before I start bothering individual maintainers, I wonder if anyone on this list has any experience with the package and (or!) can diagnose my problems? Thanks, Calum Hello, I am having a little trouble with plotKML and I am not sure whether to ascribe it to my incompetence (most likely), incomplete

My question is about the "Signif. codes" and the p-value, specifically, the output when I run summary(nameofregression.lm) So you get this little key: Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 And on a regression I ran, next to the intercept data, I get '***' Coefficients: > > Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) > >

You may want to retry that after a make distclean, in case anything changed in the toolchain. -pd > On 6 Apr 2017, at 14:43 , Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. <therneau at mayo.edu> wrote: > > This run was done this AM on my linux box, and older 32 bit Dell optiplex (core 2 duo). The failure message is at the very end. (It's due to be replaced in a couple of weeks.) The sequence

Hola, No sé si esas funciones cuando te proporcionan los strings utilizan algún parámetro de configuración sobre el enconding. Si no lo tienen (en español, es conveniente utilizar UTF-8). Pero una vez en tu workspace, mira la función "iconv()" que te ayudará tanto a conocer el encoding que tienen las cadenas como a transformarlas. En un caso reciente, para poder tener en cuenta los

Hello! I am trying to round the number always up - i.e., whatever the positive number is, I would like it to round it to the closest 10 that is higher than this number, the closest 100 that is higher than this number, etc. For example: x<-3241.388 signif(x,1) rounds to the closest thousand, i.e., to 3,000, but I'd like to get 4,000 instead. signif(x,2) rounds to the closest hundred,