similar to: Modification-proposal for %% (modulo) when supplied with double

Duncan, I think Emil realizes that the floating point format isn't able to represent certain numbers, that's why he is suggesting this change rather than complaining about our arithmetic being broken. However, I agree with you that we should not adopt his proposal. It would not make things more "user friendly" for people. Everyone has a different application and a different use

On 11/09/2018 11:23 AM, Emil Bode wrote: > Hi all, > > > > Could we modify the "%%" (modulo)-operator to include some tolerance for rounding-errors when supplied with doubles? > > It's not much work (patch supplied on the bottom), and I don't think it would break anything, only if you were really interested in analysing rounding differences. > >

El vie., 31 ago. 2018 a las 16:00, Mark van der Loo (<mark.vanderloo at gmail.com>) escribi?: > > how about > > is_evenly_spaced <- function(x,...) all.equal(diff(sort(x)),...) This doesn't work, because 1. all.equal does *not* return FALSE. Use of isTRUE or identical(., TRUE) is required if you want a boolean. 2. all.equal compares two objects, not elements in a vector.

Agreed that's it's rounding error, and all.equal would be the way to go. I wouldn't call it a bug, it's simply part of working with floating point numbers, any language has the same issue. And while we're at it, I think the function can be a lot shorter: .is_continous_evenly_spaced <- function(n){ length(n)>1 && isTRUE(all.equal(n[order(n)], seq(from=min(n),

Hello dear R users! I did not find a function which gives information about the number of digits of a value shown by R. Do you know one? I need it to solve the problem (see RFAQ 7.31)that 0.2==0.2+0.1-0.1 FALSE The solution suggested in RFAQ is to use isTRUE(all.equal(0.2,0.2+0.1-0.1)) But if I want to compare inequality: 0.2<=0.2 +0.1-0.1 TRUE but 0.2<=0.2 +0.1-0.1 FALSE bad! but in

Dear all I want to compute Monte Carlo p-values in lmer-models based on sampled data sets. To speed up calculations, I've tried to use internal functions from the Matrix package (as suggested ealier on the list by Doug Bates). So I did: fm2 <- lmer(resistance ~ ET + position + (1|Grp), Semiconductor,method='ML') simdata<-simulate(fm2,nsim=1) ynew <- simdata[,1] mer

Dear all, I just noticed that the 0.9 update for FrF2 did not work out for Mac OS due to an error in an example that ran without error on all other platforms. I do not find any reason for this. In the past, umlauts or tab characters have sometimes been an issue, but I didn't find any of these. The function definition is FrF2(nruns = NULL, nfactors = NULL, factor.names = if

Maybe a new Operator could be defined for a fast and easy double Comparison: `~~` `~~` <- function (e1, e2) all.equal(e1, e2) And document it properly.

> x<-1:10 > y<-x+1e-20 > x [1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > y [1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > identical(x,y) [1] FALSE > match(x,y) [1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 What's the principle the function use to determine if x match y? Thank you! 2005-10-21 ------ Deparment of Sociology Fudan University My new mail addres is ronggui.huang at gmail.com

Is there a canonical way to check if all elements of a vector or matrix are the same? Solutions below work, but look hackish to me. > x <- rep(1, 10) > all(x == x[1]) # == operator does not provide for small differences [1] TRUE > isTRUE(all.equal(x, rep(x[1], length(x)))) # ugly [1] TRUE Best, Vincent -- Vincent Goulet, Associate Professor ??cole d'actuariat

Full_Name: Marco Vicentini, University of Verona Version: 2.4.1 & 2.5.1 OS: OsX & WinXP Submission from: (NULL) (157.27.253.46) When I proceed to test the following equation 1 + 2 == 3, I obviously obtain the value TRUE. But when I tryed to do the same using real number (i.e. 0.1 + 0.2 == 0.3) I obtained an unusual FALSE. In the online help there are some tricks for this problem. It

Hi all, Sorry for bothering those not interested. I found that ARM backend will insert a modulo function (like __modsi3) instead of the modulo instruction. I wonder how we can inline the modulo function into the program. Is there any OPTION we can use in the opt or llc? Thanks, Ray -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Please excuse the lack of a complete dataset here, if its needed I'll be happy to provide it. Can anyone show me how to rewrite this? Browse[1]> time(data)[24210:24220] [1] 24.209 24.210 24.211 24.212 24.213 24.214 24.215 24.216 24.217 [10] 24.218 24.219 Browse[1]> which(time(data)==24.211) numeric(0) I'm assuming its an eps fault but which(all.equal(time(data),24.211)) dosnt

I was reading about the order of optimizations in the code generation stage here: http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html#the-high-level-design-of-the-code-generator This is the part that's interesting to me: 3. SSA-based Machine Code Optimizations<http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html#ssa-based-machine-code-optimizations>— This optional stage consists of a series of machine-code

I'd like to pick up this thread started on 2019-04-11 (https://hypatia.math.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2019-April/077632.html). Modulo all the other suggestions in this thread, would my proposal of being able to disable forked processing via an option or an environment variable make sense? I've prototyped a working patch that works like: > options(fork.allowed = FALSE) >

On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 03:11:45PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 01:58:29PM +0000, Renato Golin wrote: > > I can see the error, and it's just a bad selection of choices. I was > > wrong in assuming that the "eabi" at the end would always force it: > > > > $ clang -target arm-elf-eabi -S mod.c -o - | grep mod > > .file

Ah, my bad, you're right of course. sum(abs(diff(diff( sort(x))))) < eps for some reasonable eps then, would do as a oneliner, or all(abs(diff(diff(sort(x)))) < eps) or max(abs(diff(diff(sort(x))))) < eps -Mark Op vr 31 aug. 2018 om 16:14 schreef I?aki Ucar <iucar at fedoraproject.org>: > El vie., 31 ago. 2018 a las 16:00, Mark van der Loo > (<mark.vanderloo at

how about is_evenly_spaced <- function(x,...) all.equal(diff(sort(x)),...) (use ellipsis to set tolerance if necessary) Op vr 31 aug. 2018 om 15:46 schreef Emil Bode <emil.bode at dans.knaw.nl>: > Agreed that's it's rounding error, and all.equal would be the way to go. > I wouldn't call it a bug, it's simply part of working with floating point > numbers, any

On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 01:58:29PM +0000, Renato Golin wrote: > I can see the error, and it's just a bad selection of choices. I was > wrong in assuming that the "eabi" at the end would always force it: > > $ clang -target arm-elf-eabi -S mod.c -o - | grep mod > .file "mod.c" > bl __modsi3 > bl __umodsi3 I was discussing this with Tim on IRC and he

On Jan 23, 2013, at 3:45 PM, ryan baird <ryanrbaird at gmail.com> wrote: > I was reading about the order of optimizations in the code generation stage here: http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html#the-high-level-design-of-the-code-generator > > This is the part that's interesting to me: > > 3. SSA-based Machine Code Optimizations — This optional stage consists of a