dim(tmp)
[1] 576 12
tmp
1 10 11 12 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 9
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0
30 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0
40 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0
50 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0
60 0 0 0
Hi Changbin,
it's not line numbers. It's row names, and you deleted some of them. If you
checked, you'd have seen that eg 107-109 are missing. So you have 576 lines
left from a matrix that had 600 when it was formed.
Cheers
Joris
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Changbin Du changb...@gmail.com
Changbin -
If you take the time to look at your data frame,
you'll see the following 24 numbers are missing
from the rownames.
78 84 107 108 109 158 164 194 197 203 240 241
243 255 256 264 275 277 282 284 300 305 311 312
(I found this using
(1:600)[!(1:600) %in% rownames(tmp)]
)
row names are not the same as line numbers or indices.
you've likely done some row-based selection on an original matrix or
data frame.
observe from the example below.
(and in the future please don't expect people to sort through your
500+ line matrices by hand to find your problems.)
x -
This is a guess since you didn't say where it comes from.
It looks like a data.frame where some rows were deleted.
Also, note that the column names in your example are sorted alphabetically
instead of numerically. This example shows one way to get that behavior.
Rich
tmp -
Thanks all of you, I appreciated!
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Phil Spector spec...@stat.berkeley.eduwrote:
Changbin -
If you take the time to look at your data frame,
you'll see the following 24 numbers are missing
from the rownames.
78 84 107 108 109 158 164 194 197 203 240 241
6 matches
Mail list logo
