From: Tony Plate <tplate_at_acm.org>

Date: Sat 29 Oct 2005 - 07:13:52 EST

}

# Some examples

f <- function(x, y, p=1) {cat("in f\n"); (x*y)^p}

R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list

https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html Received on Sat Oct 29 07:21:35 2005

Date: Sat 29 Oct 2005 - 07:13:52 EST

[following on from a thread on R-help, but my post here seems more appropriate to R-devel]

Would a patch to make outer() work with non-vectorized functions be considered? It seems to come up moderately often on the list, which probably indicates that many many people get bitten by the same incorrect expectation, despite the documentation and the FAQ entry. It looks pretty simple to modify outer() appropriately: one extra function argument and an if-then-else clause to call mapply(FUN, ...) instead of calling FUN directly.

Here's a function demonstrating this:

outer2 <- function (X, Y, FUN = "*", ..., VECTORIZED=TRUE) {

no.nx <- is.null(nx <- dimnames(X <- as.array(X))) dX <- dim(X) no.ny <- is.null(ny <- dimnames(Y <- as.array(Y))) dY <- dim(Y) if (is.character(FUN) && FUN == "*") { robj <- as.vector(X) %*% t(as.vector(Y)) dim(robj) <- c(dX, dY) } else { FUN <- match.fun(FUN) Y <- rep(Y, rep.int(length(X), length(Y))) if (length(X) > 0) X <- rep(X, times = ceiling(length(Y)/length(X))) if (VECTORIZED) robj <- FUN(X, Y, ...) else robj <- mapply(FUN, X, Y, MoreArgs=list(...)) dim(robj) <- c(dX, dY) } if (no.nx) nx <- vector("list", length(dX)) else if (no.ny) ny <- vector("list", length(dY)) if (!(no.nx && no.ny)) dimnames(robj) <- c(nx, ny) robj

}

# Some examples

f <- function(x, y, p=1) {cat("in f\n"); (x*y)^p}

outer2(1:2, 3:5, f, 2) outer2(numeric(0), 3:5, f, 2) outer2(1:2, numeric(0), f, 2) outer2(1:2, 3:5, f, 2, VECTORIZED=F) outer2(numeric(0), 3:5, f, 2, VECTORIZED=F) outer2(1:2, numeric(0), f, 2, VECTORIZED=F)

# Output on examples

*> f <- function(x, y, p=1) {cat("in f\n"); (x*y)^p}
**> outer2(1:2, 3:5, f, 2)
*

in f

[,1] [,2] [,3]

[1,] 9 16 25

[2,] 36 64 100

> outer2(numeric(0), 3:5, f, 2)

in f

[,1] [,2] [,3]

> outer2(1:2, numeric(0), f, 2)

in f

[1,]

[2,]

*> outer2(1:2, 3:5, f, 2, VECTORIZED=F)
*

in f

in f

in f

in f

in f

in f

[,1] [,2] [,3]

[1,] 9 16 25

[2,] 36 64 100

*> outer2(numeric(0), 3:5, f, 2, VECTORIZED=F)
*

[,1] [,2] [,3]

*> outer2(1:2, numeric(0), f, 2, VECTORIZED=F)
*

[1,]

[2,]

*>
*

If a patch to add this feature would be considered, I'd be happy to submit one (including documentation). If so, and if there are any potential traps I should bear in mind, please let me know!

- Tony Plate

Rau, Roland wrote:

> Dear all,

*>
**> a big thanks to Thomas Lumley, James Holtman and Tony Plate for their
**> answers. They all pointed in the same direction => I need a vectorized
**> function to be applied. Hence, I will try to work with a 'wrapper'
**> function as described in the FAQ.
**>
**> Thanks again,
**> Roland
**>
**>
**>
**>>-----Original Message-----
**>>From: Thomas Lumley [mailto:tlumley@u.washington.edu]
**>>Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:39 PM
**>>To: Rau, Roland
**>>Cc: r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch
**>>Subject: Re: [R] outer-question
**>>
**>>
**>>You want FAQ 7.17 Why does outer() behave strangely with my function?
**>>
**>> -thomas
**>>
**>>On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Rau, Roland wrote:
**>>
**>>
**>>>Dear all,
**>>>
**>>>This is a rather lengthy message, but I don't know what I
**>>
**>>made wrong in
**>>
**>>>my real example since the simple code works.
**>>>I have two variables a, b and a function f for which I would like to
**>>>calculate all possible combinations of the values of a and b.
**>>>If f is multiplication, I would simply do:
**>>>
**>>>a <- 1:5
**>>>b <- 1:5
**>>>outer(a,b)
**>>>
**>>>## A bit more complicated is this:
**>>>f <- function(a,b,d) {
**>>> return(a*b+(sum(d)))
**>>>}
**>>>additional <- runif(100)
**>>>outer(X=a, Y=b, FUN=f, d=additional)
**>>>
**>>>## So far so good. But now my real example. I would like to plot the
**>>>## log-likelihood surface for two parameters alpha and beta of
**>>>## a Gompertz distribution with given data
**>>>
**>>>### I have a function to generate random-numbers from a
**>>>Gompertz-Distribution
**>>>### (using the 'inversion method')
**>>>
**>>>random.gomp <- function(n, alpha, beta) {
**>>> return( (log(1-(beta/alpha*log(1-runif(n)))))/beta)
**>>>}
**>>>
**>>>## Now I generate some 'lifetimes'
**>>>no.people <- 1000
**>>>al <- 0.1
**>>>bet <- 0.1
**>>>lifetimes <- random.gomp(n=no.people, alpha=al, beta=bet)
**>>>
**>>>### Since I neither have censoring nor truncation in this
**>>
**>>simple case,
**>>
**>>>### the log-likelihood should be simply the sum of the log of the
**>>>### the densities (following the parametrization of
**>>
**>>Klein/Moeschberger
**>>
**>>>### Survival Analysis, p. 38)
**>>>
**>>>loggomp <- function(alphas, betas, timep) {
**>>> return(sum(log(alphas) + betas*timep + (alphas/betas *
**>>>(1-exp(betas*timep)))))
**>>>}
**>>>
**>>>### Now I thought I could obtain a matrix of the
**>>
**>>log-likelihood surface
**>>
**>>>### by specifying possible values for alpha and beta with the given
**>>>data.
**>>>### I was able to produce this matrix with two for-loops.
**>>
**>>But I thought
**>>
**>>>### I could use also 'outer' in this case.
**>>>### This is what I tried:
**>>>
**>>>possible.alphas <- seq(from=0.05, to=0.15, length=30)
**>>>possible.betas <- seq(from=0.05, to=0.15, length=30)
**>>>
**>>>outer(X=possible.alphas, Y=possible.betas, FUN=loggomp,
**>>
**>>timep=lifetimes)
**>>
**>>>### But the result is:
**>>>
**>>>>outer(X=possible.alphas, Y=possible.betas, FUN=loggomp,
**>>>
**>>>timep=lifetimes)
**>>>Error in outer(X = possible.alphas, Y = possible.betas, FUN
**>>
**>>= loggomp,
**>>
**>>>:
**>>> dim<- : dims [product 900] do not match the length
**>>
**>>of object [1]
**>>
**>>>In addition: Warning messages:
**>>>...
**>>>
**>>>### Can somebody give me some hint where the problem is?
**>>>### I checked my definition of 'loggomp' but I thought this
**>>
**>>looks fine:
**>>
**>>>loggomp(alphas=possible.alphas[1], betas=possible.betas[1],
**>>>timep=lifetimes)
**>>>loggomp(alphas=possible.alphas[4], betas=possible.betas[10],
**>>>timep=lifetimes)
**>>>loggomp(alphas=possible.alphas[3], betas=possible.betas[11],
**>>>timep=lifetimes)
**>>>
**>>>
**>>>### I'd appreciate any kind of advice.
**>>>### Thanks a lot in advance.
**>>>### Roland
**>>>
**>>>
**>>>+++++
**>>>This mail has been sent through the MPI for Demographic
**>>
**>>Rese...{{dropped}}
**>>
**>>>______________________________________________
**>>>R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
**>>>https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
**>>>PLEASE do read the posting guide!
**>>
**>>http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
**>>
**>>Thomas Lumley Assoc. Professor, Biostatistics
**>>tlumley@u.washington.edu University of Washington, Seattle
**>>
**>
**>
**> +++++
**> This mail has been sent through the MPI for Demographic Research. Should you receive a mail that is apparently from a MPI user without this text displayed, then the address has most likely been faked. If you are uncertain about the validity of this message, please check the mail header or ask your system administrator for assistance.
**>
**>
*

R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list

https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html Received on Sat Oct 29 07:21:35 2005

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Fri 03 Mar 2006 - 03:40:53 EST
*