Getting back to this after 3 months :
> Martin Maechler
> on Wed, 16 Dec 2020 11:13:32 +0100 writes:
> Gabriel Becker
> on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:23:00 -0800 writes:
>> Hi Edgar, I certainly don't think quantile(x, .975) should
>> return 980, as that is a completel
Sorry, I need to change my last post.
I looked at this a bit more, and realized that increasing the (max)
number of (name) digits is only relevant in some cases.
For people computing quartiles and deciles, this shouldn't make any difference.
Therefore, should still be convenient for the purposes o
CITED TEXT CONTAINS EXCERPTS ONLY
> and now we read more replies on this topic without anyone looking at
> the pure R source code which is pretty simple and easy.
> Instead, people do experiments and take time to muse about their findings..
> Honestly, I'm disappointed: I've always thought that if
> Gabriel Becker
> on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:23:00 -0800 writes:
> Hi Edgar, I certainly don't think quantile(x, .975) should
> return 980, as that is a completely wrong answer.
> I do agree that it seems like the name is a bit
> offputting. I'm not sure how deep in the
hours or days so why fight it to find a subtle bug
in something I could not change. Your question is valid but my guess is few
use it in a way that will get much notice.
From: Ed Merkle
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 11:33 AM
To: Avi Gross ; r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] quanti
other non-default "type" of calculation, what Abby
offered may also apply.
-Original Message-
From: R-devel
mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org>> On Behalf
Of Abby Spurdle
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 4:48 PM
To: Merkle, Edgar C. mailto:merk...@missouri.edu>>
Cc:
cember 14, 2020 4:48 PM
To: Merkle, Edgar C.
Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] quantile() names
The "value" is *not* 975.
It's 975.025.
The results that you're observing, are merely the byproduct of formatting.
Maybe, you should try:
quantile (x, .975, type=4)
The "value" is *not* 975.
It's 975.025.
The results that you're observing, are merely the byproduct of formatting.
Maybe, you should try:
quantile (x, .975, type=4)
Which perhaps, using default options, produces the result you're expecting?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 8:55 AM Merkle, Edgar C.
Hi Edgar,
I certainly don't think quantile(x, .975) should return 980, as that is
a completely wrong answer.
I do agree that it seems like the name is a bit offputting. I'm not sure
how deep in the machinery you'd have to go to get digits to no effect on
the names (I don't have time to dig in rig
All,
Consider the code below
options(digits=2)
x <- 1:1000
quantile(x, .975)
The value returned is 975 (the 97.5th percentile), but the name has been
shortened to "98%" due to the digits option. Is this intended? I would have
expected the name to also be "97.5%" here. Alternatively, the return
10 matches
Mail list logo
