The optional tolerance argument [Design Issues]
Hi Hötzi,
This comparison in your context is just a test if the difference is less than about 10-8 since there is an implied
Effective zero residuals will be somewhat better than 10-8 in practice. They will depend on the approach used to find the solution; in
Here's an example of a perfect fit, therefore having effective zero residuals:
It may actually not be the best example since the dependents are all representable inernally in R's (and computer's) binary.
Perhaps this makes a better point:
❝ ❝ ❝ 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$double.eps
❝ all.equal(x, zero)
❝ [1] TRUE
❝ zero
❝ [1] 2.220446e-16
This comparison in your context is just a test if the difference is less than about 10-8 since there is an implied
tolerance
argument for all.equal
, the square root of .Machine$double.eps
Effective zero residuals will be somewhat better than 10-8 in practice. They will depend on the approach used to find the solution; in
lm
I believe the approach is via a qr
decomposition of the model matrix, and R by defualt has a tol
argument in that function of 10-7 which lm
may be leaning on. Here's an example of a perfect fit, therefore having effective zero residuals:
a=c(rep(1,5), rep(2,5), rep(3,5))
b=c(rep("A",5), rep("B",5), rep("C",5))
M=lm(a~0+b)
resid(M)
It may actually not be the best example since the dependents are all representable inernally in R's (and computer's) binary.
Perhaps this makes a better point:
a=c(rep(pi,5), rep(sin(1.5+pi),5), rep(log(pi),5))
b=c(rep("A",5), rep("B",5), rep("C",5))
M=lm(a~0+b)
resid(M)
—
Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
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
- EMA guideline: no way...: mittyri 2019-12-07 20:58
- 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 ≈ 0 Helmut 2019-12-22 10:37
- The optional tolerance argumentElMaestro 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
- Sum of residuals ~ ε ElMaestro 2019-12-24 15:10
- Sum of residuals ~ ε Helmut 2019-12-24 14:54
- Slightly off topic, but related :-) ElMaestro 2019-12-21 15:02
- No way! But... wienui 2019-12-07 04:01
- No way! But... PharmCat 2019-12-06 23:46
- No way! But... Helmut 2019-12-06 14:47
- No way! But... ElMaestro 2019-12-06 13:14
- No way! But... Beholder 2019-12-06 12:36