From: Duncan Murdoch <murdoch_at_stats.uwo.ca>

Date: Wed 08 Feb 2006 - 23:22:09 EST

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 Thu Feb 09 00:16:03 2006

Date: Wed 08 Feb 2006 - 23:22:09 EST

On 2/8/2006 4:53 AM, Bjørn-Helge Mevik wrote:

> Why don't you test it yourself?

*>
**> E.g.,
**>
**> set.seed(42)
**> bob1 <- rnorm(1000,0,1)
**> set.seed(42)
**> bob2 <- rnorm(500,0,1)
**> bob3 <- rnorm(500,0,1)
**> identical(bob1, c(bob2, bob3))
**>
**> I won't tell you the answer. :-)
*

This isn't really something that can be proved by a test. Perhaps the current implementation makes those equal only because 500 is even, or divisible by 5, or whatever...

I think the intention is that those should be equal, but in a quick search I've been unable to find a documented guarantee of that. So I would take a defensive stance and assume that there may be conditions where c(rnorm(m), rnorm(n)) is not equal to rnorm(m+n).

If someone can point out the document I missed, I'd appreciate it.

Duncan Murdoch

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 Thu Feb 09 00:16:03 2006

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Fri 03 Mar 2006 - 03:42:26 EST
*