Peter Dalgaard wrote: > Robin Hankin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>Hi >> >>I am having difficulty with eigen() on R-devel_2006-01-05.tar.gz >> >>Specifically, in R-2.2.0 I get expected behaviour: >> >> >> > eigen(matrix(1:100,10,10),FALSE,TRUE)$values >>[1] 5.208398e+02+0.000000e+00i -1.583980e+01+0.000000e+00i >>[3] -4.805412e-15+0.000000e+00i 1.347691e-15+4.487511e-15i >>[5] 1.347691e-15-4.487511e-15i -4.269863e-16+0.000000e+00i >>[7] 1.364748e-16+0.000000e+00i -1.269735e-16+0.000000e+00i >>[9] -1.878758e-18+5.031259e-17i -1.878758e-18-5.031259e-17i >> > >> >> >>The same command gives different results in the development version: >> >> >> > eigen(matrix(1:100,10,10),FALSE,TRUE)$values >>[1] 3.903094e-118 -3.903094e-118 -2.610848e-312 -2.995687e-313 >>-2.748516e-313 >>[6] -1.073138e-314 -1.061000e-314 -1.060998e-314 4.940656e-324 >>0.000000e+00 >> > R.version() >>Error: attempt to apply non-function >> > R.version > > > Strange and semi-random results on SuSE 9.3 as well: > > >> eigen(matrix(1:100,10,10))$values > > [1] -5.393552e+194 3.512001e-68 0.000000e+00 0.000000e+00 > 0.000000e+00 > [6] 0.000000e+00 0.000000e+00 0.000000e+00 0.000000e+00 > 0.000000e+00 > >> eigen(matrix(1:100,10,10))$values > > [1] 1.526259e-311 -1.041529e-311 1.181720e-313 0.000000e+00 > 0.000000e+00 > [6] 0.000000e+00 0.000000e+00 0.000000e+00 0.000000e+00 > 0.000000e+00 > >> eigen(matrix(1:100,10,10))$values > > [1] -9.338774e+93 0.000000e+00 0.000000e+00 0.000000e+00 0.000000e+00 > [6] 0.000000e+00 0.000000e+00 0.000000e+00 0.000000e+00 0.000000e+00 > >> eigen(matrix(1:100,10,10))$values > > [1] 5.4e-311+ 0.0e+00i -2.5e-311+3.7e-311i -2.5e-311-3.7e-311i > [4] 2.5e-312+ 0.0e+00i -2.4e-312+ 0.0e+00i 3.2e-317+ 0.0e+00i > [7] 0.0e+00+ 0.0e+00i 0.0e+00+ 0.0e+00i 0.0e+00+ 0.0e+00i > [10] 0.0e+00+ 0.0e+00i > > >
Mine is closer to Robin's, but not the same (EL4 x86). > eigen(matrix(1:100,10,10))$values [1] 5.208398e+02+0.000000e+00i -1.583980e+01+0.000000e+00i [3] 6.292457e-16+2.785369e-15i 6.292457e-16-2.785369e-15i [5] -1.055022e-15+0.000000e+00i 3.629676e-16+0.000000e+00i [7] 1.356222e-16+2.682405e-16i 1.356222e-16-2.682405e-16i [9] 1.029077e-16+0.000000e+00i -1.269181e-17+0.000000e+00i > But surely, my matrix algebra is a bit rusty, I think this matrix is solveable analytically? Most of the eigenvalues shown are almost exactly zero, except the first two, actually, which is about 521 and -16 to the closest integer. I think the difference between mine and Robin's are rounding errors (the matrix is simple enough I expect the solution to be simple integers or easily expressible analystical expressions, so 8 e-values being zero is fine). Peter's number seems to be all 10 e-values are zero or one being a huge number! So Peter's is odd... and Peter's machine also seems to be of a different archtecture (64-bit machine)? HTL ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel