Thank you to all.
I had actually found the summary and trotted that out.
Just had not gotten back to the list.
Thanks again!
Sincerely,
Erin
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Bert Gunter wrote:
> Beauty -- or obscurity -- is in the eyes of the beholder. But I leave
> your objections to stand
In direct contrast to what Bert says, I think this is a very reasonable
(and non-trivial) question.
The problem results from Gurus structuring the functions that they write
in such a way that they are totally opaque to anyone but the
ultra-cognoscenti. What is gained by not having things s
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Erin Hodgess wrote:
> Hello R People:
>
> I'm having a forest/trees location problem with the output of nls.
>
> If I save the output to an object, and print the object, it shows, amongst
> other things, the residual sum of squares. I would like to get that.
>
> Ho
1. Why? What do you think it tells you? (The number of parameters in a
NONlinear model is probably not what you think it is).
2. ?deviance
3. You've been posting all this time and still didn't try
stats:::print.nls ?? -- which is where you would find the answer.
Cheers,
Bert
Bert Gunter
Gene
Hello R People:
I'm having a forest/trees location problem with the output of nls.
If I save the output to an object, and print the object, it shows, amongst
other things, the residual sum of squares. I would like to get that.
However, when I look at names or str of the object, I can't find the
5 matches
Mail list logo
