Nope. round() is not failsafe either. Basically, there is theoretically no way to guarantee immunity to floating point error in conditional comparisons. You need to either switch to integers -- which **are** exactly represented -- or figure out another way.
Of course, practically speaking, sufficient rounding will work. It's just that it **can** always break. ... and you know Murphy's first law. -- Bert On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:54 PM, hamoreno <hamor...@asu.edu> wrote: > Thanks everyone... Seems that I will have to use round before seq to make > sure everything has the correct precision. > > -- > View this message in context: > http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/Inconsistency-using-seq-tp4633739p4633750.html > Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Bert Gunter Genentech Nonclinical Biostatistics Internal Contact Info: Phone: 467-7374 Website: http://pharmadevelopment.roche.com/index/pdb/pdb-functional-groups/pdb-biostatistics/pdb-ncb-home.htm [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ 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.
