On 20-Apr-10 17:07:31, Joshua Wiley wrote:
> As a disclaimer, I cannot say that this is why sum() was designed as it
> was.
>
> 0 is the sum of a set with no elements, the empty set {}. When
> na.rm=TRUE, NA values are removed. When the only values are NA (as in
> your example c(NA, NA) ), and you remove them all, you are taking the
> sum of no elements, which is 0.
>
> Also note the behavior of
>
> sum() # returns 0
>
> sum is one of the few functions that you can simply call that will not
> return an error.
>
> HTH,
>
> Josh
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:42 AM, <will.ea...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> just a stupid R question, since the results puzzle me a bit:
>>
>>> sum(c(NA,NA), na.rm=TRUE)
>> [1] 0
>>> _NA + NA
>> [1] NA
>>> NA + 1
>> [1] NA
>>>
>>
>> Why does sum(c(NA,NA), na.rm=TRUE) return 0 and not NA?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Will
Exactly the same question was asked, in exactly the same words,
5 days ago:
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2010-April/235337.html
and, I suspect, by exactly the same person (thoug using a
different email address). And, also, it was answered 5 days ago.
Was the second sending an accident?
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <ted.hard...@manchester.ac.uk>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 20-Apr-10 Time: 18:24:38
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
______________________________________________
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.
