Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

2.220446e-16 ≈ 0 [Design Issues]

posted by Helmut  – Vienna, Austria, 2019-12-22 11:37 (1970 d 01:34 ago) – Posting: # 21016
Views: 9,304

Hi ElMaestro,

❝ ❝ For observation 8 we have -3.608225e-16, I think,

❝ I think, is around the "effective zero" for fits in R at default settings on 64- and 32-bit systems.

Yes, it is.

x    <- -3.608225e-16
zero <- .Machine$double.eps
all.equal(x, zero)
[1] TRUE
zero
[1] 2.220446e-16

—
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! 
Helmut Schütz


The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

• Should those subjects have only one period data be included in BE analysis? ssussu 2019-12-06 10:58 
  • No way! But... Beholder 2019-12-06 12:36
    • No way! But... ElMaestro 2019-12-06 13:14
      • No way! But... Helmut 2019-12-06 14:47
        • No way! But... PharmCat 2019-12-06 23:46
          • No way! But... wienui 2019-12-07 04:01
            • EMA guideline: no way...: mittyri 2019-12-07 20:58
              • EMA guideline: no way...: wienui 2019-12-09 05:25
          • Slightly off topic, but related :-) ElMaestro 2019-12-08 01:31
            • Slightly off topic, but related :-) Shuanghe 2019-12-09 12:00
            • Slightly off topic, but related :-) PharmCat 2019-12-09 15:13
              • Slightly off topic, but related :-) ElMaestro 2019-12-21 15:02
                • Slightly off topic, but related :-) PharmCat 2019-12-22 01:12
                • 2.220446e-16 ≈ 0Helmut 2019-12-22 10:37
                  • The optional tolerance argument ElMaestro 2019-12-23 14:37
                  • 2.220446e-16 ≈ 0 PharmCat 2019-12-24 14:18
                    • Sum of residuals ~ ε Helmut 2019-12-24 14:54
                      • Sum of residuals ~ ε ElMaestro 2019-12-24 15:10
                        • Wrong terminology Helmut 2019-12-28 13:55
                      • Sum of residuals ~ ε PharmCat 2019-12-24 18:40