R-alpha: Re: svd

Paul Gilbert (la-jassine@aix.pacwan.net)
Mon, 16 Dec 1996 00:46:54 -0400


Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 00:46:54 -0400
To: R-testers@stat.math.ethz.ch
From: Paul Gilbert <la-jassine@aix.pacwan.net>
Subject: R-alpha: Re: svd

I apologize for extra demand on list bandwidth created by my mistakenly
typing v$d rather than 1/v$d in a previous message regarding a matrix
inverse, and also again for confusing my wife (=Ellis) and myself
(=Gilbert). Thanks to everyone who checked that it was my mistake and that
there is no difference between S and R usage of svd. Special thanks to
Douglas Bates for guessing I wanted a generalized inverse and for pointing
out the S-new discussion which I unfortunately missed.

With respect to the generalized inverse I think the product (matrix *
vector) is a prime candiate for some non-conformable error message, or a
least a warning, and it is a pity that it turns out to be computationally
efficient. I would guess this product is computed more often in error than
on purpose.

Paul Gilbert

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
r-testers mailing list -- For info or help, send "info" or "help",
To [un]subscribe, send "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-testers-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-