By changing three lines in drop1 from access based on $ to access
based on standard accessor methods (terms() and residuals()), it becomes
*much* easier to extend drop1 to work with other model types.
The use of $ rather than accessors in this context seems to be an
oversight rather than a
Hi,
When 'x' is a vector of doubles, it's not clear how 'factor(x)'
compares its values in order to determine the levels. For example,
here all the values in 'x' are conceptually the same:
x - c(11/3,
2/3 + 4/3 + 5/3,
50 + 11/3 - 50,
7.1 - 103/30)
Herve,
the answer is simple - it's as.character() - it has nothing to do with factor
or table.
as.character(x)
[1] 3.67 3.67 3.66 3.67
That's what you are passing to factor, so you get the corresponding results.
Cheers,
Simon
On Feb 23,
On 02/23/2011 12:09 PM, Simon Urbanek wrote:
Herve,
the answer is simple - it's as.character() - it has nothing to do with factor
or table.
as.character(x)
[1] 3.67 3.67 3.66 3.67
That's what you are passing to factor, so you get the
Ben Bolker bbol...@gmail.com
on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:14:37 -0500 writes:
By changing three lines in drop1 from access based on $
to access based on standard accessor methods (terms() and
residuals()), it becomes *much* easier to extend drop1 to
work with other model
On 11-02-23 03:20 PM, Martin Maechler wrote:
Ben Bolker bbol...@gmail.com
on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:14:37 -0500 writes:
By changing three lines in drop1 from access based on $
to access based on standard accessor methods (terms() and
residuals()), it becomes *much* easier
On Feb 23, 2011, at 21:38 , Ben Bolker wrote:
Potentially, but I am personally much more interested in enabling
drop1(), which seems to be a much more legitimate tool for testing terms
in models than step(), which is so easy to abuse ...
Yes, although repeated use of drop1() easily leads
I've recently been working with some California county-level data. The
counties can be referred to as either FIPS codes, eg F060102, friendly
names such as Del Norte County, names without 'County' on the end,
names with 'CA' on the end (Del Norte County, CA). Different data
sets use slightly
residuals() and $residuals are often very different: residuals() is
generic, but even the default method is *not* simple extraction. Their
values can be of different lengths: think about an lm fit with
na.action = na.exclude. That is precisely the sort of thing the tests
in add.R were
I'm having a very odd problem with system(wait = FALSE). I'm not
entirely sure whether it's a bug in R or a problem on our end. It's
related to a post a month or so ago in R-help which got no responses,
but I have a little more to add.
This command works as expected (I use c:\tmp since c:\
To me this is a common situation, especially to switch between two
languages. I solve it by separating the coding of values and their
labels. Values are coded numerically or as character, and their
labels are attached by a value.label attribute. When needed a
modified factor function
On 11-02-23 06:12 PM, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
residuals() and $residuals are often very different: residuals() is
generic, but even the default method is *not* simple extraction. Their
values can be of different lengths: think about an lm fit with na.action
= na.exclude. That is precisely
I get this (with R-2.12 and R-2.13, didn't try with earlier versions):
max(c(NaN, NA))
[1] NA
max(c(NA, NaN))
[1] NaN
I get the same thing with min().
The fact that the result of 'max(x)' or 'min(x)' depends on the order
of the elements in 'x' is surprising. It also seems to contradict the
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Oliver Soong wrote:
I'm having a very odd problem with system(wait = FALSE). I'm not
entirely sure whether it's a bug in R or a problem on our end. It's
related to a post a month or so ago in R-help which got no responses,
but I have a little more to add.
Well, the
14 matches
Mail list logo
