On Mar 30, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Corrado wrote:
Dear David,
David Winsemius wrote:
A) It is not an error, only a warning. Wouldn't it seem reasonable
to issue such a warning if you have data that violates the
distributional assumptions?
I am not questioning the approach. I am only trying to understand
why a (rather expensive) source of documentation and the behaviour
of a function are not aligned.
B) You did not include any of the data
Data attached as R object.
C) Wouldn't this be more appropriate to the author of the book if
this is "exactly what was suggested" there?
I think it will be definitively appropriate, but only when I am
certain I am not doing anything wrong.
I don't understand this perspective. You bought Crowley's book so he
is in some minor sense in debt to you. Why should you think it is
more appropriate to send your message out to thousands of readers of r-
help around the world (some of whom have written books that you did
not buy) before sending Crowley a question about his text?
Regards
--
Corrado Topi
PhD Researcher
Global Climate Change and Biodiversity
Area 18,Department of Biology
University of York, York, YO10 5YW, UK
Phone: + 44 (0) 1904 328645, E-mail: ct...@york.ac.uk
David Winsemius, MD
West Hartford, CT
______________________________________________
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.
