[R] possible error in stem() function?

[Sarah Goslee]

The help isn't particularly helpful, but you need to play with the
scale argument.
The range of your first dataset is long enough that you're getting
only even-numbered stems by default.


Try these:

x1 <- c(479,482,487,493,494,494,495,496,497,498,498,499,503,504,507,507,508,

510,511,512,514,516,520,524,525,525,527,534,536,542,545,546,547,549,
                 557,559,561,561,563,563,567,568,569,570,572,578,584)
stem(x1, scale=1)
summary(x1)
stem(x1, scale=2)

x2 <- c(479,482,487,493,494,494,495,496,497,498,498,499,503,504,507,507,508,

510,511,512,514,516,520,524,525,525,527,534,536,542,545,546,547,549,
                 557,559,561,561,563,563,567,568,569,570,572,578)
stem(x2, scale=1)
summary(x2)
stem(x2, scale=2)



On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Zibeli Aton via R-help
<r-help at r-project.org> wrote:
> Using R-3.3.1 on Linux I seem to sometimes get inaccurate stem-and-leaf plots using stem.  For example:
>
>> x <- c(479,482,487,493,494,494,495,496,497,498,498,499,503,504,507,507,508,
> +                 510,511,512,514,516,520,524,525,525,527,534,536,542,545,546,547,549,
> +                 557,559,561,561,563,563,567,568,569,570,572,578,584)
>> stem(x)
>
>   The decimal point is 1 digit(s) to the right of the |
>
>   46 | 9
>   48 | 27344567889
>   50 | 3477801246
>   52 | 0455746
>   54 | 2567979
>   56 | 1133789028
>   58 | 4
>
> This plot is inaccurate since there are no values 469, 483, 484, etc. in the data.
>
> If I remove one value from the input, then the result appears correct:
>
>> x <- c(479,482,487,493,494,494,495,496,497,498,498,499,503,504,507,507,508,
> +                 510,511,512,514,516,520,524,525,525,527,534,536,542,545,546,547,549,
> +                 557,559,561,561,563,563,567,568,569,570,572,578)
>> stem(x)
>
>   The decimal point is 1 digit(s) to the right of the |
>
>   47 | 9
>   48 | 27
>   49 | 344567889
>   50 | 34778
>   51 | 01246
>   52 | 04557
>   53 | 46
>   54 | 25679
>   55 | 79
>   56 | 1133789
>   57 | 028
>
> Is there a limit to the length of the input argument, a bug in the function, or something I'm missing?
>
> Thanks.
>