similar to: how to use sapply code

Hi r-users, I have this code here : dt   <- winter_pos_sum bt   <- c(24.96874, 19.67861, 23.51001, 19.86868); round(bt,2) alp  <- c(2.724234, 3.914649, 3.229146, 3.120719); round(alp,2) bt_min  <- min(bt) ; bt_min p       <- alp_sum    ; p t  <- 50 t1 <- t+1             #first get the sum over the eigenvalues for a particular power i gam_sum <-

Hi r-users,   I would like to solve for z values using newton iteration method.  I 'm not sure which part of the code is wrong since I'm not very good at programming but would like to learn.  There seem to be some output but what I expected is a vector of z values.  Thank you so much for any help given.   newton.inputsingle <- function(pars,n) {  runi    <- runif(974, min=0, max=1)

Hi R-users,   I have this code below and I understand the error message but do not know how to correct it.  My question is how do I get rid of “with absolute error < 7.5e-06” attach to value of cdf so that I can carry out the calculation.   integrand <- function(z) { alp  <- 2.0165   rho  <- 0.868   # simplified expressions   a      <- alp-0.5   c1     <-

Hi r-users,   I hope somebody can help me to understand the error message.  Here is my code; ## Newton iteration newton_gam <- function(z) { n   <- length(z)   r   <- runif(n)   tol <- 1E-6   cdf <- vector(length=n, mode="numeric")   fprime <- vector(length=n, mode="numeric")   f   <- vector(length=n, mode="numeric")     for (i in 1:1000)   {

Hi r-users,   I have the following code to solve 4 simultaneous eqns with 4 unknowns using newton iteration method.  But I got the error message:   pars <- c(1.15, 40, 50, 0.78) newton.input2 <- function(pars) {  ## parameters to estimate      alp <- pars[1]    b1  <- pars[2]     b2  <- pars[3]    rho <- pars[4]   f1 <- pars[1]*pars[2] f2 <-

Dear R useRs, I have a problem with nls.lm function of minpackl.lm package. I need to fit the Van Genuchten Model to a set of data of Theta and hydraulic conductivity with nls.lm function of minpack.lm package. For the first fit, the parameter estimates keep changing even after 1000 iterations (Th) and I have a following error message for fit of hydraulic conductivity (k); Reason for

On 06/06/2014 02:33, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > Hi Alp, > > This warning should be fixed by r210301. However, consider > investigating why the frame size appears to be that large. I believe > we build this code with GCC as well and have seen no complaints > from its implementation of -Wframe-larger-than. CC'ing in llvmdev. Like Chandler said it could just be due to lack of

Hi R-users,   I have this code here: library(numDeriv)   fprime <- function(z) { alp  <- 2.0165;   rho  <- 0.868;   # simplified expressions   a      <- alp-0.5   c1     <- sqrt(pi)/(gamma(alp)*(1-rho)^alp)   c2     <- sqrt(rho)/(1-rho)   t1     <- exp(-z/(1-rho))   t2     <- (z/(2*c2))^a   bes1   <- besselI(z*c2,a)   t1bes1 <- t1*bes1   c1*t1bes1*t2 }   ## Newton

On 25/06/2014 21:18, Eli Bendersky wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com > <mailto:alp at nuanti.com>> wrote: > > > On 25/06/2014 21:03, Eli Bendersky wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com > <mailto:alp at nuanti.com> <mailto:alp at nuanti.com

On 25/06/2014 21:03, Eli Bendersky wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com > <mailto:alp at nuanti.com>> wrote: > > For whatever reason, patches posted to the Phabricator website > still aren't being sent to the mailing list, making it difficult > for us to review them. > > I've raised this issue a couple

On 11 December 2013 17:35, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: > I noticed a few contributors have been landing patches without responding to > my review comments. Oh, that happened to me too, but it turns out you have to press the "clowncopterize" after making comments inlilne, or Phabricator won't publish them. You can see them, we can't. cheers, --renato

On 11/12/2013 17:48, Renato Golin wrote: > On 11 December 2013 17:35, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: >> I noticed a few contributors have been landing patches without responding to >> my review comments. > Oh, that happened to me too, but it turns out you have to press the > "clowncopterize" after making comments inlilne, or Phabricator won't >

On 11/11/2013 19:08, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Nov 11, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com > <mailto:alp at nuanti.com>> wrote: >> Done :-) >> >> The patchset is 532K so I've put it online: >> >> http://www.nuanti.com/tmp/llvm-api-stability/ >> >> The bulk edits are split out and noted. They were refactored with an

I have to agree with Alp here. I’ve seen a number of review threads that either seem to be missing emails or in which the emails arrive days in unintelligible orders. I don’t know that we need to cut off use of it, but we need to prioritize resolving this issue. —Owen On Jun 25, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think it's all

On 01/07/2014 21:28, Alp Toker wrote: > Specifically the problem I've been seeing is that people using the > website are unable to CC mailing list-based developers. As a result I > don't get copied in on responses to my review comments, and rarely get > any kind of direct mail with threading. You end up having to dig up > historic responses in the mailing list archive

On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 11:42:28PM +0100, Alp Toker wrote: > > On 05/05/2014 20:51, Richard Smith wrote: > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chandler Carruth > > <chandlerc at google.com <mailto:chandlerc at google.com>> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com > > <mailto:alp at nuanti.com>>

On 26/02/2014 09:03, David Chisnall wrote: > On 25 Feb 2014, at 23:13, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: > >> Now that we've kick-started the LLVM OpenMP runtime discussion, I want to make a concrete proposal to get a test suite up and running for the LLVM OpenMP runtime. I don't think the current setup as an LLVM subproject is sustainable going forward without some

On 10/12/2013 19:47, Jim Grosbach wrote: > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com > <mailto:alp at nuanti.com>> wrote: > >> >> On 10/12/2013 18:03, Jim Grosbach wrote: >>>> That causes dissonance between what the compiler sees and what >>>> lit.py sees for no particularly good reason. One of the nice

On 11/11/2013 07:37, NAKAMURA Takumi wrote: > 2013/11/10 Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com>: >> #ifndef NDEBUG >> >> This is the biggest violation. NDEBUG should only ever be used in source >> files. That way if something is crashing we can swap in a debug build >> without rebuilding every single dependent application. Win! > I wish; > > - NDEBUG may

On 30/01/2014 22:57, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: >> On 30/01/2014 22:06, Daniel Berlin wrote: >>> Actually, the policy actually says the right thing, you removed a >>> sentence, which says: >>> "Please contact the oversight group for more details." >> >> To be clear, I