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

Gabor Grothendieck ggrothendieck at gmail.com
Sun Dec 21 15:03:24 CET 2008

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch at stats.uwo.ca> wrote:
> On 21/12/2008 7:57 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>> 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:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
>> It is surprising how many posters disregard this basic requirement for a
>> post,
> I don't find it surprising.   Putting together a good bug report requires
> several skills that need to be learned.  I suspect medical doctors and auto
> mechanics also work with poor reports of what's wrong.  I do sometimes find
> it frustrating (as I imagine doctors and auto mechanics do), but probably
> not as frustrating as the posters find it.
>> clearly stated at the bottom of each message to r-help.
> Now really, who reads repetitive stuff at the bottom of messages?  The
> dividing line clearly indicates that it's some formal requirement, not meant
> to be read.

I think most people do read it since most posts ask in a reproducible way
and the whole idea of repetition, as in advertising, is that such
repetition can be

More information about the R-help mailing list