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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-