cummax / cummin for complex numbers
Ah! That was not clear and this early on a Monday morning, insufficient caffeine levels are common. :-) I can confirm that this is still an issue in 3.1.1, which is a version newer than what Michael is running and the current stable release. They appear to be still reversed in the current SVN trunk (aka R-Devel): https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/main/cum.c Regards, Marc
On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Duncan Temple Lang <dtemplelang at ucdavis.edu> wrote:
I believe Michael's point is that the error messages are incorrect - referring to cunmax when cunmin was called and vice verse. D. On 7/14/14, 8:14 AM, Ben Bolker wrote:
Michael Haupt <michael.haupt <at> oracle.com> writes:
Dear all, in R 3.1.0, this is happening:
cummin(c(1+1i,2-3i,4+5i))
Error in cummin(c(1 + (0+1i), 2 - (0+3i), 4 + (0+5i))) : 'cummax' not defined for complex numbers
cummax(c(1+1i,2-3i,4+5i))
Error in cummax(c(1 + (0+1i), 2 - (0+3i), 4 + (0+5i))) : 'cummin' not defined for complex numbers It may be fixed in R-devel, but I thought I'd mention it to make sure ... Best, Michael
Well, it is documented in the development version:
x: a numeric or complex (not ?cummin? or ?cummax?) object, or an
object that can be coerced to one of these.
I imagine the problem is in coming up with a good, consistent definition
of the min/max for complex numbers: would you prefer min/max modulus,
phase, real part, imaginary part ... ? max()/min() aren't even defined
for complex numbers in R ...