similar to: understanding round() behavior

Dear All, I was wondering whether someone has created a kernel density evaluator that estimates the density at given specified points. The regular density() function evaluates the kernel at equidistant points, but I am interested in doing such evaluation along a list of values existing in a pre-specified vector. (Similar to the option at() in the kdensity command in Stata). This question has

Dear R users, I have a problem computing time differences using R. I have a date that are given using the following format: 20080620.00, where the 4 first digits represent the year, the next 2 ones the month and the last 2 ones the day. I would need to compute time differences between two vectors of this given format. I tried around trying to change this format into any type of time serie

Hi, I am starting to use Mapstraction with the openlayers provider, and I am not sure how to retrieve the current center of a map in a cross-provider way. i.e. currently when calling map.getCenter(), the result returned is the openlayers internal one, not the long/lat used when calling setCenter(). Is that the expected behaviour? Regards, Philippe -------------- next part -------------- An

There are a bunch of us working on LLVM in Austin. So we're organizing a LLVM Austin Social in September. The social will be on Wednesday, September 12 from 5 pm at the BB Rovers Cafe and Pub. It'll be great to meet up with folks in Austin who are also interested in LLVM. Please reply and let me know if you plan on attending so that I can get a count. BB Rovers is on Jollyville road

Dear R contributors, I recently dowloaded the R-1.3.1 on my SGi Origin 200 run by Irix6.5. In order to instal it, I launched the command shown below: env MAKE=gmake ./configure The output was as follow:: R is now configured for mips-sgi-irix6.5 Source directory: . Installation directory: /usr/local C compiler: cc -OPT:IEEE_NaN_inf=ON -g C++ compiler:

Hello! I stumbled upon something odd that took a while to track down, and I wanted to run it by here to see if I should submit a bug report. For randomly generated numbers (from a variety of distributions) rounding them to specifically 2 digits and then multiplying them by 100 produces strange results on about 8% of cases. The problematic numbers display as I would have expected, but do not

Hello, I am using R to analyze a large multilevel data set, using lmer() to model my data, and using anova() to compare the fit of various models. When I run two models, the output of each model is generated correctly as far as I can tell (e.g. summary(f1) and summary(f2) for the multilevel model output look perfectly reasonable), and in this case (see below) predictor.1 explains vastly more

I am hoping for some advice regarding limiting decimal points to 3. 'Round' produces the desired results except for the 97.5% confidence interval. Any advice as to how I modify the code to obtain output to 3 decimal points for all ouput is appreciated, regards Bob Green mod.multgran <-multinom(offence ~ grandiose * violent.convictions, data = kc, na.action = na.omit)

I am hoping for some assistance with a problem that has puzzled me. Immediately below is the error messages I obtained when I tried to perform two functions. (A) tapply(outcome,na.rm=T,grp,mean) Error in tapply(outcome, na.rm = T, grp, mean) : arguments must have same length +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (B) library(nlme) > anova(lme(outcome ~ grp * time,

>>>>> Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> >>>>> on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:33:58 +0200 writes: >>>>> Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> >>>>> on Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:40:05 -0500 writes: >> It is the old story of defined behaviour and expected outcomes. Hard to >> change now. >

Dear R-users with a bit of grief I had to repeat an extensive analysis because I did not suspect (and therefore did not read the documentation) that round was implemented as "for rounding off a 5, the IEC 60559 standard is expected to be used, 'go to the even digit'", resulting in round(1.5) = 2 round (2.5) = 2. As a non-mathematician I am both puzzled and intrigued by

I think what's been missed is that zapsmall works relative to the absolute largest value in the vector. Hence if there's only one item in the vector, it is the largest, so its not zapped. The function's raison d'etre isn't to replace absolutely small values, but small values relative to the largest. Hence a vector of similar tiny values doesn't get zapped. Maybe the line

Isn?t that the correct outcome? The user can change the number of digits if they want to see small values? -- Change your thoughts and you change the world. --Dr. Norman Vincent Peale > On Dec 17, 2023, at 12:11?AM, Steve Martin <stevemartin041 at gmail.com> wrote: > > ?Zapping a vector of small numbers to zero would cause problems when > printing the results of summary().

Hi everyone. This isn't specifically a CentOS question, since it could apply for any distro but I hope someone can answer it anyway. I took the following steps but was puzzled by the outcome of the test at the end: 1. Create a RAID1 array called md3 with two 750GB drives 2. Create a RAID1 array called md9 with two 500GB drives 3. Initialise md3 then md9 as physical volumes (pvcreate) 4.

I am trying to use round()to force R to display a specific number of decimals, but it seems to display <=2 decimals no matter what I specify in the digits argument. As an alternative I tried signif(), but it also produces unexpected results. See example code and results below. Format() works, but then the result no longer is numeric. Am I missing something simple? I am using R 2.9.0 on Windows

Hi, I understand the idea behind compare_numeric() is to compare strings containing digits in a special way: Do a normal string-compare up to the point where both string elemnts are numerical. Find then an outcome based on the number of consecutive digits in the strings while disregarding the value of the digits, eg a12b < a123. I guess then this order should hold: a12 == a22 < a1b, for

Hi Folks, Compare print(1234567890,digits=4) # [1] 1.235e+09 print(1234567890,digits=5) # [1] 1234567890 Granted that digits: a non-null value for 'digits' specifies the minimum number of significant digits to be printed in values. how does R decide to switch from the "1.235e+09" (rounded to 4 digits, i.e. the minumum, in "e" notation) to

We probably should not spam the list... but I am in :) Anshu, maybe we can reply directly to you, and at the end you can simply announce the head count? Sergei -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum. > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Anshuman Dasgupta > Sent:

Survfit had a bug in some prior releases due to the use of both unique(times) and table(times); I fixed it by rounding to 15 digits per the manual page for as.character. Yes, I should ferret out all the usages instead, but this was fast and it cured the user's problem. The bug is back! A data set from a local colleage triggers it. I can send the rda file to anyone who wishes. The

I was wondering if it would make sense to change the default behavior of the following: summary(15555L) ## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. ## 15560 15560 15560 15560 15560 15560 summary.default on numeric values rounds values (not just presentation) to getOption("digits")-3L (or four) digits by default, making those values surprising and less suitable for