similar to: subsetting an ordered factor

Concerns: R 1.5.0 gui version, Windows (downloaded binary) and Linux (installed from sources). # Load the data from the attached file: kk<-read.table("__filename__", header=1) # attach the data: attach(kk) Snr<-factor(Snr) # fool around with a call to anova.glm(): anova.glm( aov( nFD~Type+size+Modality+Error(Snr/(Type+size+Modality)) ) ) # Error: object nFD not found # Well, I

I don't understand under what situation ordered factor rather than unordered factor should be used. Could somebody give me some examples? What are the implications of order vs. unordered factors? Could somebody recommend a textbook to me?

You could use cut. The key calculation would be: w <- .05; eps <- 1e-5 breakpoints <- seq(min(kk), max(kk), .05) breakpoints <- floor( (breakpoints + (w/2) + eps) / w) * w values <- cut(kk, c(breakpoints, Inf), right = FALSE) values <- ordered(values) If you don't like the labels produced add lab = breakpoints as a cut arg. On 11/10/05, RenE J.V. Bertin

I'm trying to change an unordered factor into an ordered factor: data96$RV961327 <- data96$V961327 data96$RV961327[data96$V961327 %in% levels(data96$V961327)[4]] <- NA data96$RV961327[data96$V961327 %in% levels(data96$V961327)[5]] <- NA data96$RV961327 <- factor(data96$RV961327) attributes(data96$RV961327) levels(data96$RV961327) data96$RV961327 data96$RRV961327 <-

Dear R list, I think my question maybe easy for you but I really spent entire day to resolve it. Say I have a matrix, rows are 6000 genes, columns(1-6) are 3 genotypes (a,b,c) with 2 repeat. I have to use two groups each time for t-test, a vs. c or b vs. c, but I dont know how to write correct codes. Below is my codes, the last two lines are needed to be corrected....

Hi All, I noticed LLVM target independent side is converting an ordered less than "setolt" into unordered greater than "setuge" operation. There are no target hooks to control going from the ordered mode into unordered. I am trying to figure out the best way to support unordered operation on Hexagon. We don't have a single instruction to do unordered operation. So we

I have a variable which is roughly age categories in decades. In the original data, it came in coded: > str(xxx) 'data.frame': 58271 obs. of 29 variables: $ issuecat : Factor w/ 5 levels "0 - 39","40 - 49",..: 1 1 1 1... snip I then defined issuecat as ordered: > xxx$issuecat<-as.ordered(xxx$issuecat) When I include issuecat in a glm model, the result

On 29 August 2013 10:12, Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> wrote: > But this is another case. LLVM IR distinguishes between ordered and unordered compare and X86 backend has appropriate instructions. I think LLVM uses ordered/unordered compare to mean something different to what the x86 instructions do. For example, "not equal": fcmp une == unordered not

Hello; I am having a problems with the interpretation of models using ordered or unordered predictors. I am running models in lmer but I will try to give a simplified example data set using lm. Both in the example and in my real data set I use a predictor variable referring to 3 consecutive days of an experiment. It is a factor, and I thought it would be more correct to consider it ordered. Below

But this is another case. LLVM IR distinguishes between ordered and unordered compare and X86 backend has appropriate instructions. But during DAG selection we just lose this information and always generate unordered fcmp. I.e. in case of ordered fcmp the vcomiss should be generated, and in case of unordered - vucomiss. - Elena -----Original Message----- From: Dr D. Chisnall [mailto:dc552 at

On 29 Aug 2013, at 08:19, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > If so, a compare that used that instruction would have to become more > like an "invoke" with a landingpad for the exception and so on, > wouldn't it? The current fcmp can already distinguish between ordered > and unordered, because ucomiss provides that information. There are currently

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:00 PM, <sundeepk at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi All, > > I noticed LLVM target independent side is converting an ordered less than > "setolt" into unordered greater than "setuge" operation. There are no > target hooks to control going from the ordered mode into unordered. > > I am trying to figure out the best way to support

> The function ISD::getSetCCInverse() would probably be useful for you > here: you can use it to transform an unordered operation into an > ordered operation. Thanks for your reply Eli. I will check how to convert unordered operations back to ordered one. I have another related question - is it possible for frontend (clang) to generate unordered operation from the source code? -Sundeep

I found that there is no diff in code generator for Ordered / Unordered FP compare instructions. FUCOMISS, FUCOMISD are generated in the both cases. - Elena --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or

The expressions > x<-factor(x) and > class(x)<-"factor" behave differently when x is already an ordered factor. It may not be a bug but it caught me out when I was trying to remove the "orderedness" from a factor variable. The following R code illustrates the difference. Is this difference between the 2 commands desirable? > x<-1:3 > class(x) NULL

Should I open a ticket for this? - Elena From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 19:51 To: Demikhovsky, Elena Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Ordered / Unordered FP compare are not handled properly on X86 On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com<mailto:elena.demikhovsky at

Hi, I'm facing this problem quite a lot, so it seems worthwhile to check to see what the most efficient solution is. I've two vectors x (values ordered) and y. I've ranges x < x0, x0 <= x < x1, x1 <= x < x2, x2 <= x < x3, x > xn and want to construct a subvector yprime of y which consists of the first/last value of y whose x values are in the range. For

Dear all, ? I don't know if you consider this a bug or feature, but it breaks reasonable code: 'unlist' and 'sapply' convert 'ordered' to 'factor' even if all levels are equal. Here is a simple example: o <- ordered(letters) o[[1]] lapply(o, min)[[1]]??????????# ordered factor unlist(lapply(o, min))[[1]]? # no longer ordered sapply(o, min)[[1]]??????????# no

Given an ordered factor, how does one unorder it? I tried various commands with reorder, with order=F, but they all gave me error messages. I also tried to drop the order with various 'as dot something' commands, but these didn't work either. -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/unorder-an-ordered-factor-tp2014745p2014745.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Demikhovsky, Elena < elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> wrote: > I found that there is no diff in code generator for Ordered / Unordered > FP compare instructions. > FUCOMISS, FUCOMISD are generated in the both cases. > > > Yes. That's how fcmp is defined in LangRef. -Eli -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was