Mathieu Ribatet mathieu.ribatet at epfl.ch writes:
Ok, please consider it as a bad call.
Thanks for your answers.
Best,
Mathieu
Well, I don't think it's a _bad_ call; I think the
underlying wish (more flexibility in moving between
existing optimizers without changing the objective
Dear list,
Here's a suggestion about the different optimization code. There are
several optimization procedures in the base package (optim, optimize,
nlm, nlminb, ..). However, the output of these functions are slightly
different. For instance,
1. optim returns a list with arguments
On 8/8/2008 8:56 AM, Mathieu Ribatet wrote:
Dear list,
Here's a suggestion about the different optimization code. There are
several optimization procedures in the base package (optim, optimize,
nlm, nlminb, ..). However, the output of these functions are slightly
different. For instance,
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008, Mathieu Ribatet wrote:
Dear list,
Here's a suggestion about the different optimization code. There are several
optimization procedures in the base package (optim, optimize, nlm, nlminb,
..). However, the output of these functions are slightly different. For
instance,
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 8/8/2008 8:56 AM, Mathieu Ribatet wrote:
Dear list,
Here's a suggestion about the different optimization code. There are
several optimization procedures in the base package (optim, optimize,
nlm, nlminb, ..). However, the output of these functions are slightly
Ok, please consider it as a bad call.
Thanks for your answers.
Best,
Mathieu
Prof Brian Ripley a écrit :
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008, Mathieu Ribatet wrote:
Dear list,
Here's a suggestion about the different optimization code. There are several
optimization procedures in the base package (optim,
