Skip to content
Prev 29706 / 63424 Next

qgamma inaccuracy (PR#12324)

This is a really extreme usage.  AFAICS the code works well enough down to 
shape=1e-10 or so, e.g.
[1] 0.08237203

I would be interested to know what substantive problem you were trying to 
solve here that required such values.

I am pretty sure that a completely different algorithm will be required. 
For completeness we may write that in due course, but for now (R 2.7.2) I 
suggest just issuing a warning for miniscule 'shape'.
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, skylab.gupta at gmail.com wrote: