Thanks and I'll strip the code down even more in future posts.
Stephen
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Duncan Murdoch
<murdoch.dun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/09/2010 3:48 PM, stephen sefick wrote:
>>
>> Below is the code that I am using in a much larger function. I would
>> expect a bankfull measure at zero to be between 0.6 and 0.8 approxfun
>> is returning 0.8136986. I am sure that I am missing something.
>>
>> measure_bkf<- (structure(list(measurment_num = c(0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6,
>> 0.8, 1, 1.2,
>> 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 3, 3.2, 3.4), bankfull_depths_m
>> = c(-0.48,
>> -0.48, -0.42, -0.26, 0.58, 0.48, 0.47, 0.54, 0.5, 0.52, 0.52,
>> 0.56, 0.58, 0.61, 0.68, 0.62, 0.67, 0.66)), .Names = c("measurment_num",
>> "bankfull_depths_m"), row.names = c("6124", "612", "613", "614",
>> "615", "616", "617", "618", "619", "620", "621", "622", "623",
>> "624", "625", "626", "627", "628"), class = "data.frame"))
>>
>>
>> measure_bkf_not_zero<- subset(measure_bkf,
>> measure_bkf$bankfull_depths_m!=0)
>>
>> bkf_min<- which.max(measure_bkf_not_zero[,"bankfull_depths_m"]<0)
>>
>> bkf_max<- which.max(measure_bkf_not_zero[,"bankfull_depths_m"])
>>
>> #bkf_min<- ifelse(length(bkf_min)>1, bkf_min[1], bkf_min)
>> #bkf_max<- ifelse(length(bkf_max)>1, bkf_max[1], bkf_max)
>>
>> #s<- with(measure_bkf_not_zero, approx(measurment_num,
>> bankfull_depths_m,
>> xout=seq(measure_bkf_not_zero[bkf_min,"measurment_num"],
>> measure_bkf_not_zero[bkf_max,"measurment_num"], length=2000)))
>> #int_bkf<- with(s, x[which.min(y[y>0])])
>>
>> s<- with(measure_bkf_not_zero[bkf_min:bkf_max,],
>> approxfun(bankfull_depths_m, measurment_num), ties=mean)
>>
>> int_bkf<- s(0)
>>
>
> It is easier to see the problem if you don't leave all the complications in
> the beginning. Just define some variables and
> show the interpolation on a plot:
>
> x <-
> c(-0.48,-0.48,-0.42,-0.26,0.58,0.48,0.47,0.54,0.5,0.52,0.52,0.56,0.58,0.61,0.68)
> y <- c(0,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8,1,1.2,1.4,1.6,1.8,2,2.2,2.4,2.6,2.8)
> plot(x, y)
> s <- approxfun(x, y, ties=mean)
> curve(s, add=TRUE)
>
> On my system, this looks okay in 2.11.1, but not in R-patched or R-devel
> (soon to be 2.12.0). It is fixed if the x values are ordered, but it's not
> supposed to need that. I'll take a look.
>
> Duncan Murdoch
>
--
Stephen Sefick
____________________________________
| Auburn University |
| Department of Biological Sciences |
| 331 Funchess Hall |
| Auburn, Alabama |
| 36849 |
|___________________________________|
| sas0...@auburn.edu |
| http://www.auburn.edu/~sas0025 |
|___________________________________|
Let's not spend our time and resources thinking about things that are
so little or so large that all they really do for us is puff us up and
make us feel like gods. We are mammals, and have not exhausted the
annoying little problems of being mammals.
-K. Mullis
"A big computer, a complex algorithm and a long time does not equal science."
-Robert Gentleman
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org 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.
