10 messages · Uwe Ligges, Gavin Simpson, Sebastian Spaeth +4 more
Hi all, I have a list with a numerical column "cum_hardreuses". By coincidence I discovered this:
max(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
[1] 1793
summary(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
1 2 4 36 14 1790
(note the max value of 1790) Ouch this is bad! Anything I can do to remedy
this? Known bug?
This is a Version 1.16 (3198) of the MacOSX R.
Regards,
Sebastian Spaeth
Hi all, I have a list with a numerical column "cum_hardreuses". By coincidence I discovered this:
max(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
[1] 1793
summary(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
1 2 4 36 14 1790
(note the max value of 1790) Ouch this is bad! Anything I can do to remedy
this? Known bug?
No, it's a feature! See ?summary: printing is done up to 3 significant digits by default. If you want it more precise, for example use: summary(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"], digits=10) Uwe Ligges
This is a Version 1.16 (3198) of the MacOSX R. Regards, Sebastian Spaeth
______________________________________________ R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Hi all, I have a list with a numerical column "cum_hardreuses". By coincidence I discovered this:
max(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
[1] 1793
summary(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
1 2 4 36 14 1790
(note the max value of 1790) Ouch this is bad! Anything I can do to remedy
this? Known bug?
Did you read ?summary, which has:
## Default S3 method:
summary(object, ..., digits = max(3, getOption("digits")-3))
so this is a rounding issue of the *printed* representation of the
summary. Just change digits to be a larger number:
dat <- rnorm(100) max(dat)
[1] 2.434443
summary(dat)
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. -2.21100 -0.65450 0.03793 0.06919 0.84650 2.43400
summary(dat, digits = 10)
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. -2.21106232 -0.65451716 0.03793040 0.06919486 0.84652269 2.43444263
# same with integer as in your example dat <- floor(dat * 1000000) max(dat)
[1] 2434442
summary(dat)
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. -2211000 -654500 37930 69190 846500 2434000
summary(dat, digits = 10)
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. -2211063.00 -654517.50 37930.00 69194.38 846522.00 2434442.00 HTH G
This is a Version 1.16 (3198) of the MacOSX R. Regards, Sebastian Spaeth
______________________________________________ R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~% Gavin Simpson [t] +44 (0)20 7679 0522 ECRC & ENSIS, UCL Geography, [f] +44 (0)20 7679 0565 Pearson Building, [e] gavin.simpsonATNOSPAMucl.ac.uk Gower Street, London [w] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfagls/ UK. WC1E 6BT. [w] http://www.freshwaters.org.uk %~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%
max(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
[1] 1793
summary(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
1 2 4 36 14 1790
(note the max value of 1790) Ouch this is bad! Anything I can do to
remedy this? Known bug?
No, it's a feature! See ?summary: printing is done up to 3 significant digits by default. If you want it more precise, for example use:
Thanks for the info. Good to know. I didn't think that it would round pre-comma digits though. Grateful, Sebastian
Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
Hi all, I have a list with a numerical column "cum_hardreuses". By coincidence I discovered this:
max(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
[1] 1793
summary(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
1 2 4 36 14 1790
(note the max value of 1790) Ouch this is bad! Anything I can do to remedy
this? Known bug?
No, it's a feature! See ?summary: printing is done up to 3 significant digits by default.
Unfortunately, '1790' is printed with *four* significant digits, not three. The correct representation with three significant digits would have to employ scientific notation, 1.79e3.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Oliver Czoske czoske at astro.rug.nl Kapteyn Astronomical Institute Tel.: +31-50-363 4036 P.O.Box 800 9700 AV Groningen Netherlands
'Unfortunately' you give no credentials for your ex cathedra pronouncement. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_digits says The situation regarding trailing zero digits that fall to the left of the decimal place in a number with no digits provided that fall to the right of the decimal place is less clear, but these are typically not considered significant unless the decimal point is placed at the end of the number to indicate otherwise (e.g., "2000." versus "2000"). To make things more clear, trailing zeros are only recognized as significant figures if the number they are a part of has a decimal point. For example, 450 only has two sig figs, but 450. has three. which directly contradicts you. So this is at best a matter of opinion, and credentials do matter for opinions.
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
Hi all, I have a list with a numerical column "cum_hardreuses". By coincidence I discovered this:
max(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
[1] 1793
summary(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
1 2 4 36 14 1790
(note the max value of 1790) Ouch this is bad! Anything I can do to remedy
this? Known bug?
No, it's a feature! See ?summary: printing is done up to 3 significant digits by default.
Unfortunately, '1790' is printed with *four* significant digits, not three. The correct representation with three significant digits would have to employ scientific notation, 1.79e3.
Brian D. Ripley, ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595
Folks: Is "So this is at best a matter of opinion, and credentials do matter for opinions." -- Brian Ripley an R fortunes candidate? -- Bert Gunter
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
Hi all, I have a list with a numerical column "cum_hardreuses". By coincidence I discovered this:
max(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
[1] 1793
summary(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
1 2 4 36 14 1790
(note the max value of 1790) Ouch this is bad! Anything I can do to
remedy
this? Known bug?
No, it's a feature! See ?summary: printing is done up to 3 significant digits by default.
Unfortunately, '1790' is printed with *four* significant digits, not three. The correct representation with three significant digits would have to employ scientific notation, 1.79e3.
Brian D. Ripley, ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595 ______________________________________________ R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
I don't know about candidacy, and I'm not going to argue about "correctness," but it seems to me that the only valid reasons to limit precision of printing in a statistics program are (1) to save space and (2) to allow for machine limitations. This is neither. To chop off information and replace it with zeroes is just plain nasty.
Folks: Is "So this is at best a matter of opinion, and credentials do matter for opinions." -- Brian Ripley an R fortunes candidate? -- Bert Gunter On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Oliver Czoske wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
Hi all, I have a list with a numerical column "cum_hardreuses". By coincidence I discovered this:
max(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
[1] 1793
summary(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
1 2 4 36 14 1790
(note the max value of 1790) Ouch this is bad! Anything I can do to
remedy
this? Known bug?
No, it's a feature! See ?summary: printing is done up to 3 significant digits by default.
Unfortunately, '1790' is printed with *four* significant digits, not three. The correct representation with three significant digits would have to employ scientific notation, 1.79e3.
Mike Prager, NOAA, Beaufort, NC * Opinions expressed are personal and not represented otherwise. * Any use of tradenames does not constitute a NOAA endorsement.
Mike: I offered no opinion -- and really didn't have any -- about the worthiness of any of the comments that were made. I just liked Brian's little quotable aside. But since you bait me a bit ... In general, I believe that showing th 2-3 most "important" -- **not significant** -- digits **and no more** is desirable. By " most important" I mean the leftmost digits which are changing in the data (there are some caveats in the presence of extreme outliers). Printing more digits merely obfuscates the ability of the eye/brain to perceive the patterns of change in the data, the presumed intent of displaying it (not of storing it, of course). Displaying excessive digits to demonstrate (usually falsely) one's precision is evil. Clarity of communications is the standard we should aspire to. These views have been more eloquently expressed by A.S.C Ehrenburg and Howard Wainer among others... -- Bert Bert Gunter Nonclinical Statistics 7-7374 -----Original Message----- From: r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch [mailto:r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch] On Behalf Of Mike Prager Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:46 AM To: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch Subject: Re: [R] Summary shows wrong maximum I don't know about candidacy, and I'm not going to argue about "correctness," but it seems to me that the only valid reasons to limit precision of printing in a statistics program are (1) to save space and (2) to allow for machine limitations. This is neither. To chop off information and replace it with zeroes is just plain nasty.
Folks: Is "So this is at best a matter of opinion, and credentials do matter for opinions." -- Brian Ripley an R fortunes candidate? -- Bert Gunter On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Oliver Czoske wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
Hi all, I have a list with a numerical column "cum_hardreuses". By coincidence
I
discovered this:
max(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
[1] 1793
summary(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
1 2 4 36 14 1790
(note the max value of 1790) Ouch this is bad! Anything I can do to
remedy
this? Known bug?
No, it's a feature! See ?summary: printing is done up to 3 significant digits by default.
Unfortunately, '1790' is printed with *four* significant digits, not three. The correct representation with three significant digits would
have
to employ scientific notation, 1.79e3.
Mike Prager, NOAA, Beaufort, NC * Opinions expressed are personal and not represented otherwise. * Any use of tradenames does not constitute a NOAA endorsement. ______________________________________________ R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Bert-- Well, in an attempt to be pithy, I think I lost my message. The comment was directed not at you specifically, but at the idea that, given four print positions, one would ever want to print zeroes instead of data without an explicit warning. I quite agree with your comments on precision. However, if more than those two or three digits are *printed*, I think they should be as accurate as possible, or accompanied in each place by a written disclaimer. Let's say that the mean of the data is not zero, but that the precision is well within the range of floating point. Then, information is being thrown away for no clear reason. What makes it "nasty" in my opinion is that the information *appears* to be there. (Maybe this is a problem in semiotics.) So while I don't think "1.01e3" is more correct than "1010", it does not appear to be conveying information that has been stripped from the result. Is the following really how we want R to work?
a <- c(19001., 19002., 19003., 19006.) summary(a)
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 19000 19000 19000 19000 19000 19010 Respectfully, --Mike
Mike: I offered no opinion -- and really didn't have any -- about the worthiness of any of the comments that were made. I just liked Brian's little quotable aside. But since you bait me a bit ... In general, I believe that showing th 2-3 most "important" -- **not significant** -- digits **and no more** is desirable. By " most important" I mean the leftmost digits which are changing in the data (there are some caveats in the presence of extreme outliers). Printing more digits merely obfuscates the ability of the eye/brain to perceive the patterns of change in the data, the presumed intent of displaying it (not of storing it, of course). Displaying excessive digits to demonstrate (usually falsely) one's precision is evil. Clarity of communications is the standard we should aspire to. These views have been more eloquently expressed by A.S.C Ehrenburg and Howard Wainer among others... -- Bert Bert Gunter Nonclinical Statistics 7-7374 -----Original Message----- From: r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch [mailto:r-help-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch] On Behalf Of Mike Prager Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:46 AM To: r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch Subject: Re: [R] Summary shows wrong maximum I don't know about candidacy, and I'm not going to argue about "correctness," but it seems to me that the only valid reasons to limit precision of printing in a statistics program are (1) to save space and (2) to allow for machine limitations. This is neither. To chop off information and replace it with zeroes is just plain nasty. Bert Gunter <gunter.berton at gene.com> wrote:
Folks: Is "So this is at best a matter of opinion, and credentials do matter for opinions." -- Brian Ripley an R fortunes candidate? -- Bert Gunter On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Oliver Czoske wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
Hi all, I have a list with a numerical column "cum_hardreuses". By coincidence
I
discovered this:
max(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
[1] 1793
summary(libs[,"cum_hardreuses"])
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
1 2 4 36 14 1790
(note the max value of 1790) Ouch this is bad! Anything I can do to
remedy
this? Known bug?
No, it's a feature! See ?summary: printing is done up to 3 significant digits by default.
Unfortunately, '1790' is printed with *four* significant digits, not three. The correct representation with three significant digits would
have
to employ scientific notation, 1.79e3.
Mike Prager, NOAA, Beaufort, NC * Opinions expressed are personal and not represented otherwise. * Any use of tradenames does not constitute a NOAA endorsement.