Onderwerp: Re: [R-sig-Geo] Bug in surf.ls (spatial package)?
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, ONKELINX, Thierry wrote:
> > -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> > Van: Prof Brian Ripley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Verzonden: dinsdag 10 april 2007 16:20
> > Aan: ONKELINX, T
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, ONKELINX, Thierry wrote:
> > -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> > Van: Prof Brian Ripley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Verzonden: dinsdag 10 april 2007 16:20
> > Aan: ONKELINX, Thierry
> > CC: r-sig-geo@stat.math.ethz.ch
> > Onderwerp: Re: Bug in surf.ls (spatial package)?
>
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: Prof Brian Ripley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Verzonden: dinsdag 10 april 2007 16:20
> Aan: ONKELINX, Thierry
> CC: r-sig-geo@stat.math.ethz.ch
> Onderwerp: Re: Bug in surf.ls (spatial package)?
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, ONKELINX, Thierry wrote:
>
> > Dea
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, ONKELINX, Thierry wrote:
> Dear listers,
>
> When fitting a trend surface I noticed that surf.ls() generates other
> values for the model parameters than an ordinary lm(). Since both fit,
> in my opinion, the same model to the same data. So I would suppect that
> both would ge
They are using different coefficient parameterizations but the models
are otherwise
the same. For example, they give the same fitted values:
> all.equal(fitted(surface.surf), as.vector(fitted(surface.lm)))
[1] TRUE
On 4/10/07, ONKELINX, Thierry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear listers,
>
> Whe
Dear listers,
When fitting a trend surface I noticed that surf.ls() generates other
values for the model parameters than an ordinary lm(). Since both fit,
in my opinion, the same model to the same data. So I would suppect that
both would generate the same parameter values. Or am I missing
somethin
