Hi Duncan,
On 11-12-14 03:57 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 11-12-13 6:41 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi Duncan,
On 11-12-10 05:27 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 11-12-09 4:41 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi Duncan,
On 11-12-09 11:39 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 09/12/2011 1:40 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi
> peter dalgaard
> on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:40:23 +0100 writes:
> On Dec 15, 2011, at 02:51 , Hervé Pagès wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 11-12-14 08:19 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 14, 2011, at 16:19 , John C Nash wrote:
>>>
F
On Dec 15, 2011, at 02:51 , Hervé Pagès wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 11-12-14 08:19 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2011, at 16:19 , John C Nash wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Following this thread, I wondered why nobody tried cumsum to see where the
>>> integer
>>> overflow occurs. On the shorte
Hi Peter,
On 11-12-14 08:19 AM, peter dalgaard wrote:
On Dec 14, 2011, at 16:19 , John C Nash wrote:
Following this thread, I wondered why nobody tried cumsum to see where the
integer
overflow occurs. On the shorter xx vector in the little script below I get a
message:
Warning message:
In
On 14.12.2011 22:16, John C Nash wrote:
I agree that where the overflow occurs is not critical (one can go back to
cumsum and find
out). I am assuming that Uwe still wants to know there has been an overflow at
some point
i.e., a warning.
Yes, sure.
Uwe
This could become more "interestin
I agree that where the overflow occurs is not critical (one can go back to
cumsum and find
out). I am assuming that Uwe still wants to know there has been an overflow at
some point
i.e., a warning. This could become more "interesting" as parallel computation
causes
different summation orderings
On 14.12.2011 17:19, peter dalgaard wrote:
On Dec 14, 2011, at 16:19 , John C Nash wrote:
Following this thread, I wondered why nobody tried cumsum to see where the
integer
overflow occurs. On the shorter xx vector in the little script below I get a
message:
Warning message:
Integer over
On Dec 14, 2011, at 16:19 , John C Nash wrote:
>
> Following this thread, I wondered why nobody tried cumsum to see where the
> integer
> overflow occurs. On the shorter xx vector in the little script below I get a
> message:
>
> Warning message:
> Integer overflow in 'cumsum'; use 'cumsum(as
Following this thread, I wondered why nobody tried cumsum to see where the
integer
overflow occurs. On the shorter xx vector in the little script below I get a
message:
Warning message:
Integer overflow in 'cumsum'; use 'cumsum(as.numeric(.))'
>
But sum() does not give such a warning, which I
On 11-12-13 6:41 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi Duncan,
On 11-12-10 05:27 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 11-12-09 4:41 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi Duncan,
On 11-12-09 11:39 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 09/12/2011 1:40 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi,
x<- c(rep(180003L, 1000), -rep(120002L, 15
Hi Ted,
On 11-12-13 04:52 PM, (Ted Harding) wrote:
[...]
Now, computer programs for numerical computation can broadly
be divided into two types.
In one, "arbitrary precision" is available: you can tell
the program how many decimal digits you want it to work to.
An example of this is 'bc':
h
[See at end]
On 13-Dec-11 23:41:12, Hervé Pagès wrote:
> Hi Duncan,
>
> On 11-12-10 05:27 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> On 11-12-09 4:41 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
>>> Hi Duncan,
>>>
>>> On 11-12-09 11:39 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 09/12/2011 1:40 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> x<
FYI, the new int64 package on CRAN gets this right, but is of course
somewhat slower since it is not doing hardware 64-bit arithmetic.
x <- c(rep(180003L, 1000), -rep(120002L, 1500))
library(int64)
sum(as.int64(x))
# [1] 0
- Murray
2011/12/9 Hervé Pagès :
> Hi,
>
Hi Duncan,
On 11-12-10 05:27 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 11-12-09 4:41 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi Duncan,
On 11-12-09 11:39 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 09/12/2011 1:40 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi,
x<- c(rep(180003L, 1000), -rep(120002L, 1500))
This is correct:
sum(as.doubl
On 11-12-09 4:41 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi Duncan,
On 11-12-09 11:39 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 09/12/2011 1:40 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi,
x<- c(rep(180003L, 1000), -rep(120002L, 1500))
This is correct:
sum(as.double(x))
[1] 0
This is not:
sum(x)
[1] 4996000
Returni
Hi Duncan,
On 11-12-09 11:39 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 09/12/2011 1:40 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi,
x<- c(rep(180003L, 1000), -rep(120002L, 1500))
This is correct:
> sum(as.double(x))
[1] 0
This is not:
> sum(x)
[1] 4996000
Returning NA (with a warning) would also be acce
On 09/12/2011 1:40 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
Hi,
x<- c(rep(180003L, 1000), -rep(120002L, 1500))
This is correct:
> sum(as.double(x))
[1] 0
This is not:
> sum(x)
[1] 4996000
Returning NA (with a warning) would also be acceptable for the latter.
That would m
17 matches
Mail list logo
