On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Jean Eid wrote:
Dear Thomas,
Where you also able to replicate the second example? (the exaample
that I turned the housing data into numerical variables) That is the one
that my estimates differ.
I don't have your second example, but I get the same results from
polr(formula
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Jean Eid wrote:
Thank you Thomas for your answer. It was the weights that are giving me
problems and I still have no idea why. i.e. when I try your example,
everything work fine. However when I do not include the weights=Freq and
[fw=Freq] in both softwares, I do get verry
Now I understand,
R gives numbers zero to about 6 digits and Stata gives zero to about 30
digits. The intercepts are the same in both packages.
Thank you,
Jean,
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Thomas Lumley wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Jean Eid wrote:
Thank you Thomas for your answer. It was the
Dear All,
I have been struggling to understand why for the housing data in MASS
library R and stata give coef. estimates that are really different. I also
tried to come up with many many examples myself (see below, of course I
did not have the set.seed command included) and all of my
`random'
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Jean Eid wrote:
Dear All,
I have been struggling to understand why for the housing data in MASS
library R and stata give coef. estimates that are really different. I also
tried to come up with many many examples myself (see below, of course I
did not have the set.seed command
Dear Thomas,
Where you also able to replicate the second example? (the exaample
that I turned the housing data into numerical variables) That is the one
that my estimates differ.
Jean,
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Thomas Lumley wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Jean Eid wrote:
Dear All,
I have been
