similar to: Solved (??) Behaviour of integrate (was 'Poisson-lognormal probab ility calculations')

Hi again, Adding further information to my own query, this function gets to the core of the problem, which I think lies in the behaviour of 'integrate'. ------------------------------------- function (x, meanlog = 0, sdlog = 1, ...) { require(stats) integrand <- function(t, x, meanlog, sdlog) dpois(x,t)*dlnorm(t, meanlog, sdlog) mapply(function(x, meanlog, sdlog, ...) #

Hi, just for the record, although I don't think it's relevant (!) ------------------------------------- > sessionInfo() R version 2.6.0 (2007-10-03) i386-pc-mingw32 locale: LC_COLLATE=English_United Kingdom.1252;LC_CTYPE=English_United Kingdom.1252;LC_MONETARY=English_United Kingdom.1252;LC_NUMERIC=C;LC_TIME=English_United Kingdom.1252 attached base packages: [1] stats4 splines

Hi! I have following data which is left truncated say at 10. I am trying to estimate the parameters of the Truncated Lognormal distribution to this data as given below. (I have referred to R code appearing in an earlier post - http://finzi.psych.upenn.edu/Rhelp10/2008-October/176136.html) library(MASS) x <- c(600.62,153.05,70.26,530.42,3440.29,97.45,174.51,168.47, 116.63,36.51, 219.77,

rlnorm takes two 'shaping' parameters: meanlog and sdlog. meanlog would appear from the documentation to be the log of the mean. eg if the desired mean is 1 then meanlog=0. So to generate random values that fit a lognormal distribution I would do this: rlnorm(N , meanlog = log(mean) , sdlog = log(sd)) But when I check the mean I don't get it when sdlog>0. Interestingly I

The density of a lognormal should be 0 for negative arguments, but > dlnorm(-1) [1] NaN Warning message: NaNs produced in: dlnorm(x, meanlog, sdlog, log) A simple fix is to change dlnorm's definition to: function (x, meanlog = 0, sdlog = 1, log = FALSE) .Internal(dlnorm(x*(x>0), meanlog, sdlog, log)) It might be faster to put the same sort of adjustment into the internal code, but

Dear All, I know that this topic has been already discussed on this list (see e.g. http://markmail.org/message/bq2bdxwblwl4rpgf?q=r+fit+truncated+lognormal&page=1&refer=2ufc4fb2eftfwwml#query:r%20fit%20truncated%20lognormal+page:1+mid:7wxgkdxhixotorr5+state:results for the case of weibull distribution), but I am experiencing some problems. I deal with truncated distributions (that this to

Dear All I am trying to replicate a numerical application (not computed on R) from an article. Using, ks.test() I computed the exact D value shown in the article but the p-values I obtain are quite different from the one shown in the article. The tests are performed on a sample of 37 values (please see "[0] DATA" below) for truncated Exponential, Pareto and truncated LogNormal

Dear Carlos, Duncan and everyone You may have already sorted the matter by now, but since I have not seen anything posted since Duncan's reply, here I go. I apologize in advance for the spam, if it turns out I've missed some post. I think the test and the implementation of the truncgof package are just fine. I've done Carlos' experiment (repeatedly generating samples and testing

I am trying to fit a lognormal distribution to a set of data and test its goodness of fit with regard to predicted values. I managed to get so far: > y <- c(2,6,2,3,6,7,6,10,11,6,12,9,15,11,15,8,9,12,6,5) > library(MASS) > fitdistr(y,"lognormal",start=list(meanlog=0.1,sdlog=0.1)) meanlog sdlog 1.94810515 0.57091032 (0.12765945) (0.09034437) But I would

Dear All,   thanks to Berend, my question posted yesturday was solved succesfully here: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/hep-on-arithmetic-covariance-conversion-to-log-covariance-td4646068.html . I posted the question with the assumption of using the results with rlnorm.rplus() from compositions. Unfortunatelly, I am not getting reasonable enough outcome. Am I applying the results wrongfully? The

Dear all, I have a code that generates data vectors within R. For example assume: z <- rlnorm(1000, meanlog = 0, sdlog = 1) Every time a vector has been generated I would like to export it into a csv file. So my idea is something as follows: for (i in 1:100) { z <- rlnorm(1000, meanlog = 0, sdlog = 1) write.csv(z, "c:/z_i.csv") Where "z_i.csv" is a filename that is

Hola Ruben, Sí precisamente es lo que comentas, en matemáticas no se suele llamar bucketización (este término se emplea más en informática) sino datos agrupados. Pero la idea es la que tu mismo dices. Respecto a las gráficas que has puesto, me han aclarado mucho sobre el tema, gracias. Si realizo lo mismo, por ejemplo con nbucket=1000 sigo obteniendo un p-valor de 1. Es decir, que casi le

Dear R-helpers, I was testing the truncgof CRAN package, found something that looked like a bug, and did my job: contacted the maintainer. But he did not reply, so I am resending my query here. I installed package truncgof and run the example for function ad.test. I got the following output: set.seed(123) treshold <- 10 xc <- rlnorm(100, 2, 2) # complete sample xt <- xc[xc >=

I am a beginner and I don't know how to use Rpad package. I installed it and opened the following example .Rpad page in Internet Explorer. When I clicked "Calculate" button, nothing seems to happen. Can anyone tell me how to use Rpad? <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN"> <html> <!-- by Tom Short, EPRI, tshort at epri.com (c) Copyright 2005 by

Hi list, Does anyone know the code behind rlnorm(n, meanlog = 0, sdlog = 1)? I am going to write it in c#. thanks Alireza [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hello, I've read the other posts with regard to "chisq.test" and "goodness of fit" and am still missing something. 1. I create a simple vector of randomly generated lognormal values with mean=0 and sd=1; >d1 <- rlnorm(100,meanlog=0,sdlog=1); 2. I also create a vector of probabilities that are expected for a lognormal distribution. I suspect this is the culprit. >pr

Hello, I've been attempting to fit the data below with an inverse gamma distribution. The reason for this is outside proprietary software (@Risk) kicked back a Pearson5 (inverse gamma) as the best fitting distribution with a Chi-Sqr goodness-of-fit roughly 40% better than with a log-normal fit. Looking up "Inverse gamma" on this forum led me the following post:

Hello, I tried to fit a lognormal distribution by using optim. But sadly the output seems to be incorrect. Who can tell me where the "bug" is? test = rlnorm(100,5,3) logL = function(parm, x,...) -sum(log(dlnorm(x,parm,...))) start = list(meanlog=5, sdlog=3) optim(start,logL,x=test)$par Carsten. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hello, I am trying to compute the density of a variable k that is either (1) Normally distributed; (2) Log-Normally distributed; or (3) follows proportional error distribution. I tried to search R-help and the answer for normal distribution was easy to find (please see 1c). I am not sure if my formula for dlnorm is correct (please see 2c below)? I really don't know what function to use for the

Full_Name: Anthony Gichangi Version: 1.90 OS: Windows XP Pro Submission from: (NULL) (130.225.131.206) The function rlnorm generates negative values for lognormal distribution. x- rlnorm(1000, meanlog = 0.6931472, sdlog = 1) Regards Anthony