I think x[x>7.5]
gives more unsurprising results when none of the data meets the criteria than x[which(x>7.5)] does. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Newmiller The ..... ..... Go Live... DCN:<jdnew...@dcn.davis.ca.us> Basics: ##.#. ##.#. Live Go... Live: OO#.. Dead: OO#.. Playing Research Engineer (Solar/Batteries O.O#. #.O#. with /Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#. .OO#. rocks...1k --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. David Winsemius <dwinsem...@comcast.net> wrote: > >On Apr 20, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Yellow wrote: > >> I now filtered the Na and Inf out of my data. >> And the number is exactly the same als the output from the excel >file. >> >> Thanks everyone. :) >> Now I can finish my work. > >In the future it might be safer to use subset() or perhaps >x[which(x>7.5)]. That would omit the NA or NaN values (although it >might not remove the Inf values, but I didn't realize the Excel had a >concept of Inf). > >-- > >David Winsemius, MD >West Hartford, CT > >______________________________________________ >R-help@r-project.org mailing list >https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help >PLEASE do read the posting guide >http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html >and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.