PS I am using 1.9.9CVS under windows XP
remaining faithful to my lazy approach :-) I add to the discussion rather
than checking in other environments.
Explaining how I discovered the point may help: I was trying to generalise a
script written by somebody else for cases when both matrices involved were
bound to be non-scalars, to
On Sat, 8 Dec 2012, Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Allin Cottrell wrote:
>
>> In fact, although we could go either way in terms of resolving the
>> inconsistency of treatment of X'Y and X'*Y, for X or Y 1x1 and not
>> strictly conformable with the other operand, it would
On Sat, 8 Dec 2012, Miviam wrote:
> I have tried what you suggested me and every change I imagined and I keep
> getting the same.
>
> This is what I have in the script:
> arima 0 1 1 ; 0 1 1 ; y --nc
> addobs 12
> smpl --full
> fcast --out-of-sample
> matrix yhat = $fcast
> matrix se=$fcerr
>
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Allin Cottrell wrote:
> In fact, although we could go either way in terms of resolving the
> inconsistency of treatment of X'Y and X'*Y, for X or Y 1x1 and not
> strictly conformable with the other operand, it would be easier (I
> think) to make the latter operation reduce to
Allin
I have tried what you suggested me and every change I imagined and I keep
getting the same.
This is what I have in the script:
arima 0 1 1 ; 0 1 1 ; y --nc
addobs 12
smpl --full
fcast --out-of-sample
matrix yhat = $fcast
matrix se=$fcerr
matrix ci = (yhat -
On 12/07/2012 11:08 PM, Allin Cottrell wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Sven Schreiber wrote:
>
>> On 12/07/2012 08:31 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>>> On 12/7/2012 1:52 PM, Summers, Peter wrote:
But your example holds true whether or not we write x'y or x'*y
>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely. I was addressing
