From Thierry.ONKELINX at inbo.be  Thu Aug  7 12:34:19 2008
From: Thierry.ONKELINX at inbo.be (Thierry.ONKELINX at inbo.be)
Date: Thu,  7 Aug 2008 12:34:19 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Rd] Bug in rnorm? (PR#12016)
Message-ID: <20080807103419.61DED282EFC1@mail.pubhealth.ku.dk>


That's not a bug. It's FAQ 7.31

Thierry


------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
ir. Thierry Onkelinx
Instituut voor natuur- en bosonderzoek / Research Institute for Nature
and Forest
Cel biometrie, methodologie en kwaliteitszorg / Section biometrics,
methodology and quality assurance
Gaverstraat 4
9500 Geraardsbergen
Belgium=0D
tel. + 32 54/436 185
Thierry.Onkelinx at inbo.be=0D
www.inbo.be=0D

To call in the statistician after the experiment is done may be no more
than asking him to perform a post-mortem examination: he may be able to
say what the experiment died of.
~ Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher

The plural of anecdote is not data.
~ Roger Brinner

The combination of some data and an aching desire for an answer does not
ensure that a reasonable answer can be extracted from a given body of
data.
~ John Tukey

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: r-devel-bounces at r-project.org
[mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-project.org] Namens
paul.eckermann at adelaide.edu.au
Verzonden: donderdag 7 augustus 2008 11:33
Aan: r-devel at stat.math.ethz.ch
CC: R-bugs at biostat.ku.dk
Onderwerp: [Rd] Bug in rnorm? (PR#12016)

Full_Name: Paul Eckermann
Version: 2.7.1
OS: Windows XP Service Pack 2
Submission from: (NULL) (129.127.183.12)


This is the first time I have submitted a bug report, so apologies if I
have not
followed the correct protocol.

If I enter

length(rnorm(100*.29))

it returns 28 rather than 29.

y<-(1:100)/100
z<-sapply(y,function(x) length(rnorm(x*100)))
z!=3D100*y

indicates that it has something to do with multiples of 7 (rounding
error?),
even though 29, 57 and 58 are the 3 values for which it returns
incorrect values
of z.

I hope that this is not something obvious that I have missed. This can
be
overcome by doing the x*100 calculation outside the rnorm function, but
I don't
see why this needs to be done when the answer is (supposed to be) an
integer.

Regards,
Paul Eckermann

______________________________________________
R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Dit bericht en eventuele bijlagen geven enkel de visie van de schrijver=
 weer en bindt het INBO onder geen enkel beding, zolang dit bericht niet=
 bevestigd is door een geldig ondertekend document.
The views expressed in  this message and any annex are purely those of the=
 writer and may not be regarded as stating an official position of INBO, as=
 long as the message is not confirmed bij a duly signed document



[Rd] Bug in rnorm? (PR#12016)
Thierry.ONKELINX at inbo.be