On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:22 PM, David Winsemius dwinsem...@comcast.net wrote:
On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:20 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:14 PM, David Winsemius dwinsem...@comcast.net
wrote:
On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:04 PM, David
On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:22 PM, David Winsemius dwinsem...@comcast.net
wrote:
On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:20 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:14 PM, David Winsemius dwinsem...@comcast.net
wrote:
On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Peng Yu
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 8:41 AM, David Winsemius dwinsem...@comcast.net wrote:
On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:22 PM, David Winsemius dwinsem...@comcast.net
wrote:
On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:20 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:14 PM, David
Peng Yu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 8:41 AM, David Winsemius dwinsem...@comcast.net wrote:
On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:22 PM, David Winsemius dwinsem...@comcast.net
wrote:
On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:20 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:14
Really? Where exactly is the loophole in 'If the question relates to a
contributed package ... try contacting the package maintainer first.'?
How about the general R philosophy that if you dare to mistakenly
submit a bug report that turns out to be a feature, not a bug, you
shall be well and
hadley wickham wrote:
Really? Where exactly is the loophole in 'If the question relates to a
contributed package ... try contacting the package maintainer first.'?
How about the general R philosophy that if you dare to mistakenly
submit a bug report that turns out to be a feature, not a bug,
Wait, what were we talking about? Right...it is a typo. It should be
c'beta in the numerator.
Peng: As the package maintainer, you really should send me a quick
email about it instead of posting to the list.
Let's not waste the bandwidth anymore. Given the number of typos in my
documentation,
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Max Kuhn mxk...@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, what were we talking about? Right...it is a typo. It should be
c'beta in the numerator.
Peng: As the package maintainer, you really should send me a quick
email about it instead of posting to the list.
Let's not waste
Peng Yu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Max Kuhn mxk...@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, what were we talking about? Right...it is a typo. It should be
c'beta in the numerator.
Peng: As the package maintainer, you really should send me a quick
email about it instead of posting to the list.
Let's
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:53 PM, David Scott d.sc...@auckland.ac.nz wrote:
Peng Yu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Max Kuhn mxk...@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, what were we talking about? Right...it is a typo. It should be
c'beta in the numerator.
Peng: As the package maintainer, you
Hi
I was only following your discussion and I wonder where you did get
mentioned PDF.
Max's email is on its first page.
Version 0.12
Date 2009-10-15
Title A collection of contrast methods
Author Max Kuhn, contributions from Steve Weston, Jed Wing and James
Forester
Maintainer Max Kuhn
It seems that Eq (2) in the vignettes for the 'contrast' packages is
not correct. That is, the numerator on the right hand side should be
$c' \beta$ rather than $c' \lambda$, right? If I'm correct, could
somebody notice the author to fix it?
__
On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:42 PM, Peng Yu wrote:
It seems that Eq (2) in the vignettes for the 'contrast' packages is
not correct. That is, the numerator on the right hand side should be
$c' \beta$ rather than $c' \lambda$, right? If I'm correct, could
somebody notice the author to fix it?
Do it
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:04 PM, David Winsemius dwinsem...@comcast.net wrote:
On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:42 PM, Peng Yu wrote:
It seems that Eq (2) in the vignettes for the 'contrast' packages is
not correct. That is, the numerator on the right hand side should be
$c' \beta$ rather than $c'
On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:04 PM, David Winsemius dwinsem...@comcast.net
wrote:
On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:42 PM, Peng Yu wrote:
It seems that Eq (2) in the vignettes for the 'contrast' packages is
not correct. That is, the numerator on the right hand
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:14 PM, David Winsemius dwinsem...@comcast.net wrote:
On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:04 PM, David Winsemius dwinsem...@comcast.net
wrote:
On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:42 PM, Peng Yu wrote:
It seems that Eq (2) in the vignettes for
On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:20 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:14 PM, David Winsemius dwinsem...@comcast.net
wrote:
On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:04 PM, David Winsemius dwinsem...@comcast.net
wrote:
On Feb 2, 2010, at 11:42 PM, Peng Yu
17 matches
Mail list logo
