similar to: find position

Hello dear r-help group I am turning for you for help with FAQ number 7.31: "Why doesn't R think these numbers are equal?" http://cran.r-project.org/doc/FAQ/R-FAQ.html#Why-doesn_0027t-R-think-these-numbers-are-equal_003f *My story* is this: I wish to run many lm predictions and need to have them run fast. Using predict.lm is relatively slow, so I tried having it run faster by

Dear all, Could someone please explain the following perculiarity? > 2 == 0.2/0.1 [1] TRUE > 3 == 0.3/0.1 [1] FALSE Similarly, floor(0.2/0.1) = 2 floor(0.3/0.1) = 2 Thank you, Simon

Hello:I am trying to match the value 0.3 in the sequence seq(.2,.3). I get > 0.3 %in% seq(from=.2,to=.3) [1] FALSE Yet > 0.3 %in% c(.2,.3) [1] TRUE For arbitrary sequences, this "invisible .3" has been problematic. What is the best way to work around this? Thank you. Dan [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Do you heve any idea why I get after this instruction everywhere false? > seq (0, 1, by=0.1) == 0.3 [1] FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE But after different step it's ok: > seq(0, 1, by=0.1) == 0.4 [1] FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE -- View this message in context:

PROC MIXED is used to fit mixed effects model for correlated data. Usually we can use either a REPEATED statment or a RANDOM statement. The random statement is corresponding to lme function in R -- specifying a random effect term. The repeated statement actually directly specifies the covariance structure -- is there a similar function in R to do this? I currently want to specify a unstructured

Hi, there, I cannot get accurate value for calculation. for example: ld<-sqrt(1*0.05*0.95*0.05*0.95) 0.05*0.95-ld=-6.938894e-18 0.05*0.95-ld==0 is False. I met this problem in my program, how can I handle it. Thanks. xj.

Dear R Helpers, I am trying to extract the modulus from divisions by a sequence of fractions. I noticed that %% seems to behave inconsistently (to my untutored eye), thus: > 0.1%%0.1 [1] 0 > 0.2%%0.1 [1] 0 > 0.3%%0.1 [1] 0.1 > 0.4%%0.1 [1] 0 > 0.5%%0.1 [1] 0.1 > 0.6%%0.1 [1] 0.1 > 0.7%%0.1 [1] 0.1 > 0.8%%0.1 [1] 0 > 0.9%%0.1 The modulus for 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 0.8 is

Full_Name: jan hattendorf Version: 2.9.0 OS: XP Submission from: (NULL) (213.3.108.185) I get an incorrect result for (41/10-1/10)%%1 [1] 1 The error did not occur with other numbers than 41 (1, 11, 21, 31, 51, ...) test <- rep(NA, 1000) for(i in 1:1000){ test[i] <- i/10-1/10 } test[test%%1==0]

With floating point numbers I'm seeing 'cut' putting values in the wrong bands. An example below places 0.3 in (0.3,0.6] i.e. 0.3 > 0.3. > x = 1:5*.1 > x [1] 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 > cut(x, br=c(0,.3,.6)) [1] (0,0.3] (0,0.3] (0.3,0.6] (0.3,0.6] (0.3,0.6] Levels: (0,0.3] (0.3,0.6] I'm sure this is probably the same issue documented in the FAQ (7.31 Why doesn't R

Dear all, Has someone implemented in R (or any other language) Knol DL, ten Berge JMF. Least-squares approximation of an improper correlation matrix by a proper one. Psychometrika, 1989, 54, 53-61. or any other similar algorithm? Best regards Jens Oehlschl?gel Background: I want to factanal() matrices of polychoric correlations which have negative eigenvalue. I coded Highham 2002

Thanks, I tried someting like this, but computation takes times for large matrices btransf <- function(y,X=length(y)^4) { N <- length(y) bm <- matrix(rep(1/N,N^2),N,N) for(j in 1:X){ coord <- sample(1:N,4,replace=T) d <- runif(1,0,min(bm[coord[1],coord[2]],bm[coord[3],coord[4]]))

Try this: 0.7-0.3==0.4 (We get FALSE) 0.7-0.3<0.4 (We get TRUE) but 0.8-0.3==0.5 (TRUE) 0.8-0.3<0.5 (FALSE) Funny, he? There is a way around: round(0.7-0.3,1)==0.4 (TRUE) Obviously there is a problem with some combinations of decimal subtractions, that - we have the feeling - shouldt be solved. Best regards Sven & Wolfgang -- View this message in context:

Try this: 0.7-0.3==0.4 (We get FALSE) 0.7-0.3<0.4 (We get TRUE) but 0.8-0.3==0.5 (TRUE) 0.8-0.3<0.5 (FALSE) Funny, he? There is a way around: round(0.7-0.3,1)==0.4 (TRUE) Obviously there is a problem with some combinations of decimal subtractions, that - we have the feeling - shouldt be solved. Best regards Sven & Wolfgang -- View this message in context:

Hello, fellow Rdicts, I have the code for the program below. I need to integrate a function of "x" and "p". I use integrate to integrate over "x" and pass "p" as an additional argument. "p" is specified and given default value in the argument list. Still, integrate() cannot read "p", unless I explicitly insert a numeric value in the

Hi, I'm having trouble with the "which" or the "seq" function, I'm not sure. Here's an example : > lat=seq(1,2,by=0.1) > lat [1] 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 > which(lat==1) [1] 1 > which(lat==1.1) [1] 2 > which(lat==1.2) [1] 3 > which(lat==1.3) [1] 4 > which(lat==1.4) [1] 5 > which(lat==1.5) [1] 6 >

Dear colleagues Please could someone kindly explain the following inconsistencies I've discovered when performing logical calculations in R: 8.8 - 7.8 > 1 > TRUE 8.3 - 7.3 > 1 > TRUE Thank you, Emma Jane [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi all, please see my code: > library(zoo) > a <- as.yearmon("March-2010", "%B-%Y") > b <- as.yearmon("May-2010", "%B-%Y") > > nn <- (b-a)*12 # number of months in between them > nn [1] 2 > as.integer(nn) [1] 1 What is the correct way to find the number of months between "a" and "b", still

Hi, I'm using the '%%' operator in some code, and am running into the following erroneous outcome: > 1.2 %% 0.2 [1] 0.2 Unless I'm very mistaken, the result should be 0 (indeed, 12 %% 2 does result in 0). Furthermore: > 1.20000000000000001 %% 0.2 [1] 0.2 > (1.2+1e17) %% .2 [1] 0 Warning message: probable complete loss of accuracy in modulus (Warning

Dear all, I a bit unsure, whether this qualifies as a bug, but it is definitly a strange behaviour. That why I wanted to discuss it. With the following function, I want to test for evenly space numbers, starting from anywhere. .is_continous_evenly_spaced <- function(n){ if(length(n) < 2) return(FALSE) n <- n[order(n)] n <- n - min(n) step <- n[2] - n[1] test <-

Hi all, In checking my R codes, I encountered the following problem. Is there a way to fix this? I tried to specify options(digits=). I did not fix the problem. Thanks so much for your help! Hanna > cdf(pmass)[2,2]==pcum[2,2][1] FALSE> cdf(pmass)[2,2][1] 0.9999758> pcum[2,2][1] 0.9999758 [[alternative HTML version deleted]]