similar to: fitting a line to a logaritmic plot

Hello, I have a data set of about 300.000 measurements made by an STM which should apporximately fix a normal (Gaussian) distribution. I have imported the data in R and used plot(density()) to get a nice plot of the distribution which in fact looks like a real Gaussian. However, the integral over the surface is not equal to one (I know since some of the plots extend to numbers greater then 1). Is

Hi there, sorry for troubling everybody once again, I've got a problem rewriting Sarkar's function for rewriting the tick locations in a logaritmic way (s. http://lmdvr.r-forge.r-project.org/code/Chapter08.R): His example works for log 2 but I need log e (natural logarithm). My problem is that if I replace 2 with "e" (using paste()), I get the error message that the location

Hello! Thank you for answering! What I am trying to do is to plot my raw values (biomass of different species) on a logaritmic y-axis with the base of e. When I type "log="y"", the axis transforms into a logaritmic axis with the base of 10. Best regards, Elisabeth > Dear Elisabeth, > > I'm not sure if I have understood your question -- are you trying > to

Hello! I have a problem which I have tried to solve for several days now.. I have plottet a lineplot.CI in the library "sciplot", and I am trying to plot it with a logaritmic y-axis (with exponential base). The problem is that; when I type "log "y"", the axis transforms into the logaritmic of base 10. I wonder if someeone could tell me how to specify that I would

Note: I am almost certain that this has been asked and answered here before, so my apologies for the redundant query. I also know that there are several packages that will do this, but I wish to do it using base R functions only (see below). The query: Suppose I have a character vector of names like this: somenames <- c("Heigh", "Ho", "Silver", "Away")

Hello Ted! Thank you a lot for your reply!!! I will try to explain again; what I want is a logarithmic scaled y-axis with the base of e (not 10). And the values I would like to use in the plot are the raw values (not transformed in any way). Do you still think that the base of log does not matter in this case (wheather it is e or 10 as a base)? Elisabeth > On 09-May-10 18:10:27, Elisabeth

Another solution. reformulate + substitute + as.formula: substitute(~ (.)^2, list(. = reformulate(somenames)[[2]])) |> as.formula() On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 5:31?PM Bert Gunter <bgunter.4567 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Note: I am almost certain that this has been asked and answered here > before, so my apologies for the redundant query. > > I also know that there are several

Gabor, Duncan, et. al. 1. Thank you for your great comments and solutions. This is what I was hoping for! 2. Duncan: I completely agree with your criticisms. In fact, I realized the for() loop only needed the <- assignment, but your comment is important to note. However, I didn't like the for() loop either; I *much* preferred your Reduce() solution which is exactly the sort of elegant

Thanks, Rich. I thought of that, too, but it violates the spirit of my restraints (to avoid character strings), which I unfortunately did not clearly articulate. So my apologies for that failure. My concern is that with more complex model formula, using as.formula, etc. to parse/convert character strings can get a bit hairy. But in most cases, as here maybe, it may be perfectly fine. So think of

> somenames <- c("Heigh", "Ho", "Silver", "Away") > as.formula(paste("~(",paste(somenames, collapse="+"),")^2")) ~(Heigh + Ho + Silver + Away)^2 > > On Mar 29, 2025, at 14:30, Bert Gunter <bgunter.4567 at gmail.com> wrote: > > somenames <- c("Heigh", "Ho", "Silver",

As always, I would like to thank all who responded for their insights and suggestions. I have learned from them. Thus far, my own aesthetic preference -- and therefore not to be considered in any sense as a "best" approach -- is to use Duncan's suggestion to produce the call directly with call() rather than substitute in my simple for() loop; i.e. somenames <-

Hi, from what you're writing: "The logaritmic transformation "shapiro.test(log10(y))" says: W=0.9773, p-value= 2.512e-05." it seems the log-values are not distributed normally and so original data are not distributed like a log-normal: the p-value is extremally small! Other tests for normality are available in package: nortest compare the log-transformation of your ecdf

I am confused. Richard's answer that Bert did not like did not use parse explicitly. Richard pasted together a string that a function like lm() will have to parse to run the analysis. However, the answers so far do not use parse(). In the reply to Richard, Bert indicated we cannot use strings. Even if I pass a vector where R can assume that the first variable is the dependent variable and all

my take of the assignment was to avoid 'parse' specifically. we start with a character vector, so avoiding characters is not possible. i was dealing with the fortune "if parse is the answer, you have the wrong question" Sent from my iPhone On Mar 29, 2025, at 15:39, Bert Gunter <bgunter.4567 at gmail.com> wrote: ? Thanks, Rich. I thought of that, too, but it violates

The general formula is y ~ a + b + c + ... There is this approach: formula <- reformulate(independent_vars, response = "y") model <- lm(formula, data = mydata) summary(model) It does not generate a string object, but the formula is still a string even if it is of class formula. Also, in this approach you only get + and if you want interactions or such you will need to code them

Hello, I thought of answering "reformulate can solve the problem" but how do you create quadratic terms with reformulate? ~(Heigh + Ho + Silver + Away)^2 is still a problem with no solution that I know of but paste/as.formula. Or Bert's bquote or substitute. Rui Barradas ?s 23:18 de 29/03/2025, Ebert,Timothy Aaron escreveu: > The general formula is y ~ a + b + c + ... >

Hi, Does any one know how we can decide on the correct transformation in (avas and ace) after having drawn the graphs y,g(y) x ,s(x) and g(y) ,s(x) . Is it possible by only looking at patterns the graphs follow for example when y ,g(y) shows a logaritmic pattern can we say that log transform on y is suitable? Thanks for your help. Regards [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Is it the tick labels that you want to change? -----Original Message----- From: "Elisabeth Bjerke Rastad" <ebr024 at post.uit.no> To: "r-help at r-project.org" <r-help at r-project.org> Sent: 5/10/10 11:20 AM Subject: [R] [Fwd: Re: Plotting log-axis with the exponential base to a plot with the default logarithm base 10] Hello! Thank you for answering! What I am

Hello R Users! I'm using lattice to produce some graphs with logaritmic y-scales. I use the command xyplot(hits ~ c(1:1024), data=eichData, type="S", scales=list(y = list(log=10))) to create the plot. This is fine, except for the automatically choosen tick marks. I'd like to have a major tick at the 10^n location and minor ticks in between which correspond with the native

I want to write a function mimic the function of select.list(), here is my preliminary version. select <- function(x,multiple=TRUE,...){ ans<-new.env() g <- gwindow(title=title,wid=200,heigh=500) x1<-ggroup(FALSE,con=g) x2<-gtable(x,multiple=multiple,con=x1,expand=TRUE) gbutton("OK",con=x1,handler=function(h,...){ value <- svalue(x2) if (length(value)==0)