On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Sorry, I meant to write 2.1.1 instead of 2.2.1 below.
OK, but it was changed in 2.1.1 patched so one needs to be precise. We used to have Arg=Im for such numbers and Arg was wrong, then Im was wrong (and now both are correct in 2.2.0 patched). > On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I think the following indicates a bug in Im(). >> >>> Im(-1) >> [1] 3.141592653589793115998 >>> pi >> [1] 3.141592653589793115998 >>> Im(0i-1) >> [1] 0 >>> Im(-0.9876) >> [1] 3.141592653589793115998 >>> Im(-987654321) >> [1] 3.141592653589793115998 >>> Im(1) >> [1] 0 >>> is.complex(-1) >> [1] FALSE >> >> This is R 2.2.0; Im(-1) == 0 with R 2.2.1. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Dan >> >>> version >> _ >> platform i386-pc-linux-gnu >> arch i386 >> os linux-gnu >> system i386, linux-gnu >> status >> major 2 >> minor 2.0 >> year 2005 >> month 10 >> day 06 >> svn rev 35749 >> language R >> >> Debian (stable) linux >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >> > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > > -- Brian D. Ripley, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595 ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
