Thank you both very much for your help. Peter Dalgaard is right- i didn't consider the fact that elementwise multiplication is column-wise rather than row-wise. Sorry for taking up time&space with such a trivial mistake.
-------- Original-Nachricht -------- Datum: 21 Jul 2006 10:07:31 +0200 Von: Peter Dalgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> An: Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Betreff: Re: [R] Loss of numerical precision from conversion to list ? > Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > R tries to use the maximum precision (64 bit mantissa) in the floating > ... > > Or perhaps your problem has nothing to do with this; I didn't really > > look at it in detail. > > It hasn't. I was off speculating about sum vs rowSums too, but: > > > > num.v<- rowSums(((lambda-lambda0)*mu*w.k.sq[,-(K+1)])/(1+lambda*mu)) > > Inside this, we have mu*w.k.sq[,-(K+1)] . mu is a vector of length 27, > and w.k.sq has 10 rows and 28 *columns*. Column-major storage and > vector recycling kicks in... If mu has identical elements (never mind > the magnitude), of course, the recycling doesn't matter. > > -- > O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Øster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B > c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K > (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) > 35327918 > ~~~~~~~~~~ - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX: (+45) > 35327907 -- Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft für 0,- Euro*! ______________________________________________ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch 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.