On 3/08/2009, at 11:14 AM, David Winsemius wrote:
On Aug 2, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Noah Silverman wrote:
Hi,
It seems as if the problem was caused by an odd quirk of the "scale"
function.
Some of my data have NA entries.
So, I substitute 0 for any NA with:
rawdata[is.na(rawdata)] <- 0
Perhaps this would have done what you intended:
rawdata[is.na(rawdata), ] <- 0
I don't think this works at all. E.g.:
set.seed(42)
junk <- matrix(rnorm(60),12,5)
junk[sample(1:60,14)] <- NA
junk[is.na(junk),] <- 0 # Throws an error.
junk[is.na(junk)] <- 0 # Gives the desired result.
# But this is added _only_ as a matter of coding behavior. See below.
<snip>
The notion of adding zeroes for NA seems "so wrong". And the idea that
you might get the same results of doing so before scale() as after
scale() seems additionally bizarre.
VERY strange behavior.
Your behavior might be seen as VERY strange by some.
I concur, heartily. Conflating NA with 0 is a first year student error
that is almost never anything other than just plain silly.
cheers,
Rolf Turner
######################################################################
Attention:\ This e-mail message is privileged and confid...{{dropped:9}}
______________________________________________
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.
