I don't know about candidacy, and I'm not going to argue about "correctness," but it seems to me that the only valid reasons to limit precision of printing in a statistics program are (1) to save space and (2) to allow for machine limitations. This is neither. To chop off information and replace it with zeroes is just plain nasty.
Bert Gunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Folks: > > Is > > "So this is at best a matter of opinion, > and credentials do matter for opinions." > > -- Brian Ripley > > an R fortunes candidate? > > -- Bert Gunter > > > On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Oliver Czoske wrote: > > > On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Uwe Ligges wrote: > >> Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> I have a list with a numerical column "cum_hardreuses". By coincidence I > >>> discovered this: > >>> > >>>> max(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"]) > >>> [1] 1793 > >>> > >>>> summary(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"]) > >>> Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. > >>> 1 2 4 36 14 1790 > >>> > >>> (note the max value of 1790) Ouch this is bad! Anything I can do to > remedy > >>> this? Known bug? > >> > >> No, it's a feature! See ?summary: printing is done up to 3 significant > >> digits by default. > > > > Unfortunately, '1790' is printed with *four* significant digits, not > > three. The correct representation with three significant digits would have > > to employ scientific notation, 1.79e3. > > > > -- Mike Prager, NOAA, Beaufort, NC * Opinions expressed are personal and not represented otherwise. * Any use of tradenames does not constitute a NOAA endorsement. ______________________________________________ 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.
