Hi Peter,
Why do you think positive log-likelihoods are unusual?
consider:
> dnorm(1,1,0.1)
[1] 3.989423
> log(dnorm(1,1,0.1))
[1] 1.383647
Any log-likelihood would be a sum of such terms.
Hth, ingmar
On 2/16/05 11:02 PM, "Peter Alspach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Kia ora
>
> I'm a using lme (from nlme package) with data similar to the Orthodont dataset
> and am getting positive log-likelihoods (>100). This seems usual and I
> wondered if someone could offer a possible explanation.
>
> I can supply a sample dataset if requested, but I feel almost certain that
> this question has been asked and answered recently. However, I can find no
> trace of it in the mail archives (although I have spent several hours reading
> lots of other interesting things :-)).
>
> Thanks .........
>
> Peter Alspach
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
> The contents of this e-mail are privileged and/or confidenti...{{dropped}}
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
--
Ingmar Visser
Roetersstraat 15
1018 WB Amsterdam
The Netherlands
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://users.fmg.uva.nl/ivisser/
______________________________________________
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
