Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum • 2.220446e-16 ≈ 0

2.220446e-16 ≈ 0 [Design Issues]

posted by Helmut – Vienna, Austria, 2019-12-22 10:37 (882 d 21:40 ago) – Posting: # 21016
Views: 4,980

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 🖖
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 [Design Issues]
- 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