On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 2/8/2006 8:30 AM, Brian D Ripley wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> On 2/8/2006 4:53 AM, Bjÿÿrn-Helge Mevik wrote:
> Why don't you test it yourself?
>>> > E.g.,>> >>> > set.seed(42)>> > bob1 <- rnorm(1000,0,1)>> > set.seed(42)>> > bo
Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This isn't really something that can be proved by a test. Perhaps the
> current implementation makes those equal only because 500 is even, or
> divisible by 5, or whatever...
>
> I think the intention is that those should be equal, but in a quick
>
On 2/8/2006 8:30 AM, Brian D Ripley wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>
>> On 2/8/2006 4:53 AM, Bj�rn-Helge Mevik wrote:
>> > Why don't you test it yourself?
>> >
>> > E.g.,
>> >
>> > set.seed(42)
>> > bob1 <- rnorm(1000,0,1)
>> > set.seed(42)
>> > bob2 <- rnorm(500,0,1)
>> > bob3
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 2/8/2006 4:53 AM, Bj?rn-Helge Mevik wrote:
> > Why don't you test it yourself?
> >
> > E.g.,
> >
> > set.seed(42)
> > bob1 <- rnorm(1000,0,1)
> > set.seed(42)
> > bob2 <- rnorm(500,0,1)
> > bob3 <- rnorm(500,0,1)
> > identical(bob1, c(bob2, bob3))
> >
On 2/8/2006 4:53 AM, Bjørn-Helge Mevik wrote:
> Why don't you test it yourself?
>
> E.g.,
>
> set.seed(42)
> bob1 <- rnorm(1000,0,1)
> set.seed(42)
> bob2 <- rnorm(500,0,1)
> bob3 <- rnorm(500,0,1)
> identical(bob1, c(bob2, bob3))
>
> I won't tell you the answer. :-)
This isn't really something
Why don't you test it yourself?
E.g.,
set.seed(42)
bob1 <- rnorm(1000,0,1)
set.seed(42)
bob2 <- rnorm(500,0,1)
bob3 <- rnorm(500,0,1)
identical(bob1, c(bob2, bob3))
I won't tell you the answer. :-)
--
Bjørn-Helge Mevik
__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch ma
Romain Francois wrote:
> Le 08.02.2006 04:21, Taka Matzmoto a écrit :
>
>
>>Hi R users
>>
>>This looks a simple question
>>
>>Is there any difference between between rnorm(1000,0,1) and running
>>rnorm(500,0,1) twice in terms of outcome ?
>>
>>TM
>>
>>
>
> Not here :
>
> R> set.seed(1)
> R> x
Le 08.02.2006 04:21, Taka Matzmoto a écrit :
>Hi R users
>
>This looks a simple question
>
>Is there any difference between between rnorm(1000,0,1) and running
>rnorm(500,0,1) twice in terms of outcome ?
>
>TM
>
>
Not here :
R> set.seed(1)
R> x <- rnorm(1000, 0, 1)
R> set.seed(1)
R> y <- rnorm
Hi R users
This looks a simple question
Is there any difference between between rnorm(1000,0,1) and running
rnorm(500,0,1) twice in terms of outcome ?
TM
__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do
