Re: [R] Gamma Distribution - is there any problem with "pgamma"?

2015-03-11 Thread Amelia Marsh
Dear Sir, Thanks a lot for your help and guidance. Regards Amelia --`-- On Wed, 11/3/15, Ben Bolker wrote: Subject: Re: [R] Gamma Distribution - is there any problem with "pgamma"? To: r-h...@stat.math.ethz.ch Date: Wednesday, 11 March, 2

Re: [R] Gamma Distribution - is there any problem with "pgamma"?

2015-03-11 Thread Amelia Marsh via R-help
Dear Mr Byng, Thanks a lot for your great help. Appreciate. Regards Amelia On Wed, 11/3/15, Martyn Byng wrote: Subject: RE: [R] Gamma Distribution - is there any problem with "pgamma"? e...@r-project.org> Date: Wednesday, 11 March

Re: [R] Gamma Distribution - is there any problem with "pgamma"?

2015-03-11 Thread Ben Bolker
Amelia Marsh yahoo.com> writes: > > Dear R forum > > I have following data > > amounts = c(928906.144,156091.0576,433798.3404,993425.7224, > 1323976.364,649106.9339, 369967.2612,2528872.35,1226093.655, > 1145446.149,1809624.453,599329.0394,2200955.213,2583318.064, > 745625.8069,961828.8828,174

Re: [R] Gamma Distribution - is there any problem with "pgamma"?

2015-03-11 Thread Martyn Byng
Sent: 11 March 2015 09:42 To: r-help@r-project.org Subject: [R] Gamma Distribution - is there any problem with "pgamma"? Dear R forum I have following data amounts = c(928906.144,156091.0576,433798.3404,993425.7224,1323976.364,6

[R] Gamma Distribution - is there any problem with "pgamma"?

2015-03-11 Thread Amelia Marsh
Dear R forum I have following data amounts = c(928906.144,156091.0576,433798.3404,993425.7224,1323976.364,649106.9339, 369967.2612,2528872.35,1226093.655,1145446.149,1809624.453,599329.0394,2200955.213,2583318.064,745625.8069,961828.8828,1744841.313,1939390.005,1077873.654,729924.2713,803584.26