similar to: Inconsistency in treating NaN-results?

As a side note, Splus makes sin(x) NA, with a warning, for abs(x)>1.6*2^48 (about 4.51e+14) because more than half the digits are incorrect in sin(x) for such x. E.g., in R we get: > options(digits=16) > library(Rmpfr) > sin(4.6e14) [1] -0.792253849684354 > sin(mpfr(4.6e14, precBits=500)) 1 'mpfr' number of precision 500 bits [1]

R and the S language that it is based on has evolved as much as it has been designed, so there are often inconsistencies due similar functionality evolving from different paths. In some cases these inconsistencies are resolved, but generally only once someone notices and care enough to do something about it. In some other cases the inconsistencies are left for historical reasons and for back

Joris, the point is that 'z' is NOT used as a predictor in the model. Therefore it should not affect predictions. Also, I find it suspicious that the error only occurs when the response variable conitains missings and 'z' is unique (I have tested several other cases to confirm this). -Mark Op vr 16 mrt. 2018 om 13:03 schreef Joris Meys <jorismeys at gmail.com>: >

Dear R-developers, In the 'lm' documentation, the '-' operator is only specified to be used with -1 (to remove the intercept from the model). However, the documentation also refers to the 'formula' help file, which indicates that it is possible to subtract any term. Indeed, the following works with no problems (the period '.' stands for 'all terms except the

hi, everybody, please help me with this question: If I want to do iteration for 1000 times, however, for the 500th iteration, there is NaN appears. Then the iteration will stop. If I don't want the stop and want the all the 1000 iterations be done. What shall I do? suppose I have x[1:1000] and z[1:1000],I want to do some calculation for all x[1] to x[1000]. z=rep(0,1000) for (i in 1:1000){

Hello, I notice in main/arithmetic.c, that NA and NaN are encoded differently(since every numeric NA comes from R_NaReal which is defined via ValueOfNA) . What is the benefit of treating these two differently? Why can't NA be a synonym for NaN? Thank you Saptarshi (R-2.9)

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:14 PM, Prof Brian Ripley <ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > From ?NA > > Numerical computations using ?NA? will normally result in ?NA?: a > possible exception is where ?NaN? is also involved, in which case > either might result. > > and ?NaN > > Computations involving ?NaN? will return ?NaN? or perhaps ?NA?: >

Greetings. I somehow had the impression that an infinite number, as obtained by dividing by zero, for instance, would be flagged as both missing ("NA") and not a number ("NaN"). It appears that I was wrong on both counts, although the is.finite function correctly returns FALSE in such a case. Please see the appended for some details. I guess that the bottom line is that R

Under windows, R supports IEEE floating point arithmetic, but doesn't allow conversion of Inf and NaN from character to numeric. R> is.nan(NaN) [1] TRUE R> as.numeric(as.character(NaN)) [1] NA Warning message: NAs introduced by coercion R> is.infinite(Inf) [1] TRUE R> as.numeric(as.character(Inf)) [1] NA Warning message: NAs introduced by coercion whereas under Linux R>

Dear R What does NaN mean? I recently did a correlation on a batch of data for some reason it didn't like one column cor(sleep,use="complete.obs") BodyWt BrainWt SlowSleep ParaSleep TotalSleep BodyWt 1.00000000 0.95584875 -0.3936373 -0.07488845 -0.3428373 BrainWt 0.95584875 1.00000000 -0.3867947 -0.07427740 -0.3370815 SlowSleep -0.39363729

> complex(real = 0, imaginary = Inf) [1] 0+Infi > Inf*1i [1] NaN+Infi >> complex(real = 0, imaginary = Inf)/5 [1] NaN+Infi See the Note in ?complex for the explanation, I think. Duncan can correct if I'm wrong. -- Bert On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 3:20?PM Leo Mada <leo.mada at syonic.eu> wrote: > Dear Bert, > > These behave like real divisions/multiplications: >

Hi, I want to recode all Inf and NaN values to NA, but I;m surprised to see the result of the following code. Could anybody enlighten me about this? > df <- data.frame(a=c(NA, NaN, Inf, 1:3)) > df[is.infinite(df) | is.nan(df)] <- NA > df a 1 NA 2 NaN 3 Inf 4 1 5 2 6 3 > Thanks! Cheers!! Albert-Jan

Hi, I want to recode all Inf and NaN values to NA, but I;m surprised to see the result of the following code. Could anybody enlighten me about this? > df <- data.frame(a=c(NA, NaN, Inf, 1:3)) > df[is.infinite(df) | is.nan(df)] <- NA > df a 1 NA 2 NaN 3 Inf 4 1 5 2 6 3 > Thanks! Cheers!! Albert-Jan

I expect that atan(1i) = (0 + infinity i) and that atan(1i)/5 = (0 + infinity i)/5 = (0 + infinity i). Here's what I get in C: (0,1) = (0, 1) atan((0,1)) = (0, inf) atan((0,1))/5 = (0, inf) Note the difference between I*infinity = (0,1)*infinity = (0*infinity,1*infinity) = (NaN,infinity) and (0,infinity)/5 = (0/5,infinity/5) = (0,infinity). The former involves multiplying 0 by infinity, which

Dear Bert, These behave like real divisions/multiplications: complex(re=Inf, im = Inf) * 5 # Inf+Infi complex(re=-Inf, im = Inf) * 5 # -Inf+Infi The real division / multiplication should be faster and also is well behaved. I was expecting R to do the real division/multiplication on a complex number. Which R actually does for these very particular cases; but not when only Im(x) is Inf.

Perhaps > Inf*1i [1] NaN+Infi clarifies why it is *not* a bug. (Boy, did that jog some long dusty math memories :-) ) -- Bert On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 2:48?PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: > On 2024-09-05 4:23 p.m., Leo Mada via R-help wrote: > > Dear R Users, > > > > Is this desired behaviour? > > I presume it's a bug. > >

atan(1i) -> 0 + Inf i complex(1/5) -> 0.2 + 0i atan(1i) -> (0 + Inf i) * (0.2 + 0i) -> 0*0.2 + 0*0i + Inf i * 0.2 + Inf i * 0i infinity times zero is undefined -> 0 + 0i + Inf i + NaN * i^2 -> 0 + 0i + Inf i - NaN -> NaN + Inf i I am not sure how complex arithmetic could arrive at another answer. I advise against messing with infinities... use atan2() if you don't

Dear R developers, (Apologies about previous incomplete e-mail, I fat-fingered a keyboard shortcut)?? I recently upgraded to 3.2.3 and am getting mystifying errors with my in-development code (available at https://github.com/gertvv/gemtc/tree/feature/regression). Every few hundred LPs that I solve using the rcdd package will result in a SEGFAULT in the garbage collector (address 0x10, cause

On 2024-09-06 12:44 a.m., Richard O'Keefe wrote: > I expect that atan(1i) = (0 + infinity i) and that atan(1i)/5 = (0 + > infinity i)/5 = (0 + infinity i). > Here's what I get in C: > (0,1) = (0, 1) > atan((0,1)) = (0, inf) > atan((0,1))/5 = (0, inf) > > Note the difference between I*infinity = (0,1)*infinity = > (0*infinity,1*infinity) = (NaN,infinity) > and

On 2024-09-05 4:23 p.m., Leo Mada via R-help wrote: > Dear R Users, > > Is this desired behaviour? > I presume it's a bug. > > atan(1i) > # 0+Infi > > tan(atan(1i)) > # 0+1i > > atan(1i) / 5 > # NaN+Infi There's no need to involve atan() and tan() in this: > (0+Inf*1i)/5 [1] NaN+Infi Why do you think this is a bug? Duncan Murdoch