[R] NA, where no NA should (could!) be!

Gabor Grothendieck ggrothendieck at gmail.com
Sun Dec 21 13:57:30 CET 2008

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Dieter Menne
<dieter.menne at menne-biomed.de> wrote:
> Peter Dalgaard <p.dalgaard <at> biostat.ku.dk> writes:
>> Why do so many people have such trouble with the word "reproducible"? We
>> can't reproduce that without access to weblog_by_date!
> In a strict sense, the example is "reproducible" as opposite to "spurious".
> Reproducible research means that you can get the same results whe you buy
> an ultracentrifuge, high-grade chemicals, a safety lab, and a technician
> with a golden hand .:)

I think reproducible is the correct word and its meaning should be clear from
both its conventional meaning, see link, and the context in which its used:

It is surprising how many posters disregard this basic requirement for a post,
clearly stated at the bottom of each message to r-help.

More information about the R-help mailing list