Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211270741450.1749-100000@tal.stat.umu.se>
Date: 2002-11-27T06:46:32Z
From: Göran Broström
Subject: unexpected behaviour of rnorm()
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.31.0211262159080.17177-100000@gannet.stats>
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk wrote:
> That's the maximum of 5000 normals, right? That's pushing the accuracy of
> some internal calculations too hard.
>
> If you want to do this, you should use
>
> RNGkind(, "Inversion")
Just of curiosity, is this a general recommendation? I.e., should I put
that in my .Rprofile and get a generally better RNG? Speed issues?
>
> That's not the default for back-compatibility reasons.
which made me wonder.
G?ran
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._