In the R Programming Style thread on R-help Ronald Rau gave a list
of aphorisms from Elements of Programming Style by Kernighan and
Plauger. These include
10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0
I think that should be included in FAQ 7.31
__
hadley wickham:
It's more than that as though, as floating point addition is no longer
guaranteed to be commutative or associative, and multiplication does
not distribute over addition. Many concepts that are clear cut in
pure math become fuzzy in floating point math - equality, singularity
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Heikki Kaskelma wrote:
hadley wickham:
It's more than that as though, as floating point addition is no longer
guaranteed to be commutative or associative, and multiplication does
not distribute over addition. Many concepts that are clear cut in
pure math become fuzzy in
hadley wickham wrote:
It's more than that as though, as floating point addition is no longer
guaranteed to be commutative or associative, and multiplication does
not distribute over addition. Many concepts that are clear cut in
pure math become fuzzy in floating point math - equality,
On 13-Feb-08 12:40:48, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
hadley wickham wrote:
It's more than that as though, as floating point addition is
no longer guaranteed to be commutative or associative, and
multiplication does not distribute over addition. Many concepts
that are clear cut in pure math become
I'm thinking (by now quite strongly) that there is a place
in Introduction to R (and maybe other basic documentation)
for an account of arithmetic precision in R (and in digital
computation generally).
A section Arithmetic Precision in R near the beginning
would alert people to this issue
] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Rd] 0.450.45 = TRUE (PR#10744)
On 12-Feb-08 14:53:19, Gavin Simpson wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 15:35 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear developer,
in my version of R (2.4.0
On 12-Feb-08 14:53:19, Gavin Simpson wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 15:35 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear developer,
in my version of R (2.4.0) as weel as in a more recent version
(2.6.0) on different computers, we found this problem :
No problem in R. This is the FAQ of all FAQs (Type
:) It is a good idea, but i don't it would work. We'd have hundreds of
emails on R-help and R-devel complaining about mysterious warning
messages for code that had been working just fine for two years
Gabor
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:13:36PM +0800, Berwin A Turlach wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:47:56 +0100
Gabor Csardi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OMG, not again please!
FAQ 7.31.
Yeah, there seems to be a cluster of that type of questions at the
moment.
Perhaps it is time to introduce a global option HaveReadFAQ7.31 whose
default is FALSE but can be changed via
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 15:35 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear developer,
in my version of R (2.4.0) as weel as in a more recent version (2.6.0)
on different computers, we found this problem :
No problem in R. This is the FAQ of all FAQs (Type III SS is probably up
there as well).
See
On 2/12/2008 9:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear developer,
in my version of R (2.4.0) as weel as in a more recent version (2.6.0)
on different computers, we found this problem :
This is not a bug, it's a limitation of finite precision arithmetic, and
it's FAQ 7.31.
Duncan Murdoch
Dear developer,
in my version of R (2.4.0) as weel as in a more recent version (2.6.0)
on different computers, we found this problem :
a-(58/40-1)
a
[1] 0.45
b-(18/40)
b
[1] 0.45
ab
[1] TRUE
a==b
[1] FALSE
Something seems wrong here.
but if we do
c-0.45
d-0.45
cd
[1] FALSE
13 matches
Mail list logo
