I've tried a couple ways of doing this problem but am having trouble with how to write it. I think I did the first three steps correctly, but now I have to fill the vector z with numbers from y that are divisible by four, not divisible by three, and have an odd number of digits. I know that I'm using the print function in the wrong way, I'm just at a loss on what else to use ...
This is different from that other question because I'm not using a while loop.
#Step 1: Generate 1,000,000 random, uniformly distributed numbers between 0
#and 1,000,000,000, and name as a vector x. With a seed of 1.
set.seed(1)
x=runif(1000000, min=0, max=1000000000)
#Step 2: Generate a rounded version of x with the name y
y=round(x,digits=0)
#Step 3: Empty vector named z
z=vector("numeric",length=0)
#Step 4: Create for loop that populates z vector with the numbers from y that are divisible by
#4, not divisible by 3, with an odd number of digits.
for(i in y) {
if(i%%4==0 && i%%3!=0 && nchar(i,type="chars",allowNA=FALSE,keepNA=NA)%%2!=0){
print(z,i)
}
}
NOTE: As per #BenBolker's comment, a loop is an inefficient way to solve your problem here. Generally, in R, try to avoid loops where possible to maximise the efficiency of your code. #SymbolixAU has provided an example of doing so here in the comments. Having said that, in aid of helping you learn the ins-and-outs of loops and vectors, here's a solution which only requires a change to one line of your code:
You've got the vector created before the loop, that's a good start. Now, inside your loop, you need to populate that vector. To do so, you've currently got print(z,i), which won't really do too much. What you need to to change the vector itself:
z <- c( z, i )
Should work for you (just replace that print line in your loop).
What's happening here is that we're taking the existing z vector, binding i to the end of it, and making that new vector z again. So every time a value is added, the vector gets a little longer, such that you'll end up with a complete vector.
where you have print put this instead:
z <- append(z, i)
Related
I am normally a maple user currently working with R, and I have a problem with correctly indexing variables.
Say I want to define 2 vectors, v1 and v2, and I want to call the nth element in v1. In maple this is easily done:
v[1]:=some vector,
and the nth element is then called by the command
v[1][n].
How can this be done in R? The actual problem is as follows:
I have a sequence M (say of length 10, indexed by k) of simulated negbin variables. For each of these simulated variables I want to construct a vector X of length M[k] with entries given by some formula. So I should end up with 10 different vectors, each of different length. My incorrect code looks like this
sims<-10
M<-rnegbin(sims, eks_2016_kasko*exp(-2.17173), 840.1746)
for(k in 1:sims){
x[k]<-rep(NA,M[k])
X[k]<-rep(NA,M[k])
for(i in 1:M[k]){x[k][i]<-runif(1,min=0,max=1)
if(x[k][i]>=0 & x[i]<=0.1056379){
X[k][i]<-rlnorm(1, 6.228244, 0.3565041)}
else{
X[k][i]<-rlnorm(1, 8.910837, 1.1890874)
}
}
}
The error appears to be that x[k] is not a valid name for a variable. Any way to make this work?
Thanks a lot :)
I've edited your R script slightly to get it working and make it reproducible. To do this I had to assume that eks_2016_kasko was an integer value of 10.
require(MASS)
sims<-10
# Because you R is not zero indexed add one
M<-rnegbin(sims, 10*exp(-2.17173), 840.1746) + 1
# Create a list
x <- list()
X <- list()
for(k in 1:sims){
x[[k]]<-rep(NA,M[k])
X[[k]]<-rep(NA,M[k])
for(i in 1:M[k]){
x[[k]][i]<-runif(1,min=0,max=1)
if(x[[k]][i]>=0 & x[[k]][i]<=0.1056379){
X[[k]][i]<-rlnorm(1, 6.228244, 0.3565041)}
else{
X[[k]][i]<-rlnorm(1, 8.910837, 1.1890874)
}
}
This will work and I think is what you were trying to do, BUT is not great R code. I strongly recommend using the lapply family instead of for loops, learning to use data.table and parallelisation if you need to get things to scale. Additionally if you want to read more about indexing in R and subsetting Hadley Wickham has a comprehensive break down here.
Hope this helps!
Let me start with a few remarks and then show you, how your problem can be solved using R.
In R, there is most of the time no need to use a for loop in order to assign several values to a vector. So, for example, to fill a vector of length 100 with uniformly distributed random variables, you do something like:
set.seed(1234)
x1 <- rep(NA, 100)
for (i in 1:100) {
x1[i] <- runif(1, 0, 1)
}
(set.seed() is used to set the random seed, such that you get the same result each time.) It is much simpler (and also much faster) to do this instead:
x2 <- runif(100, 0, 1)
identical(x1, x2)
## [1] TRUE
As you see, results are identical.
The reason that x[k]<-rep(NA,M[k]) does not work is that indeed x[k] is not a valid variable name in R. [ is used for indexing, so x[k] extracts the element k from a vector x. Since you try to assign a vector of length larger than 1 to a single element, you get an error. What you probably want to use is a list, as you will see in the example below.
So here comes the code that I would use instead of what you proposed in your post. Note that I am not sure that I correctly understood what you intend to do, so I will also describe below what the code does. Let me know if this fits your intentions.
# define M
library(MASS)
eks_2016_kasko <- 486689.1
sims<-10
M<-rnegbin(sims, eks_2016_kasko*exp(-2.17173), 840.1746)
# define the function that calculates X for a single value from M
calculate_X <- function(m) {
x <- runif(m, min=0,max=1)
X <- ifelse(x > 0.1056379, rlnorm(m, 6.228244, 0.3565041),
rlnorm(m, 8.910837, 1.1890874))
}
# apply that function to each element of M
X <- lapply(M, calculate_X)
As you can see, there are no loops in that solution. I'll start to explain at the end:
lapply is used to apply a function (calculate_X) to each element of a list or vector (here it is the vector M). It returns a list. So, you can get, e.g. the third of the vectors with X[[3]] (note that [[ is used to extract elements from a list). And the contents of X[[3]] will be the result of calculate_X(M[3]).
The function calculate_X() does the following: It creates a vector of m uniformly distributed random values (remember that m runs over the elements of M) and stores that in x. Then it creates a vector X that contains log normally distributed random variables. The parameters of the distribution depend on the value x.
Here's a super newbie question. I'm working through The Art of R Programming and came across this simple code:
z <- NULL
for (i in 1:10) if (i %% 2 == 0) z <- c(z,i)
z
the output is c(2,4,6,8,10).
What I don't understand is why you need c(z,i) to populate the vector z. Why wouldn't c(i) work. When I do that, it skips straight to the last iteration and fills vector z with the last associated value. Is there some form of rule that governs populating vectors? Try as I might, I didn't find a clear answer anywhere, just a bunch of samples that, while they made sense, didn't help me solve the above.
For example:
Let M be some matrix mXn matrix where n is large enough to make manual entry impossible.
tmp_list[1] <- M[,1:10]
tmp_list[2] <- M[,11:20]
.
.
.
tmp_list[last] <- M[end - 9,end]
The problem I'm working on is sort of monte carlo, repeating an experiment involving a random mXn matrix 100K times. I'm still pretty new to R, I've done it using a for loop, but it obviously took a very long time. So I'm hoping to assign each "experiment" to an element of a list and use lapply.
let's take the easy case, and you can expand it from there
say n=100, develop your start indeces
n<-100
byParam<-10
starts<-seq(1, n-(byParam-1), by=byParam)
then lapply
tmp_list<-lapply(starts, function(startIndex) M[, startIndex:(startIndex+(byParam-1)])
just one way to do it, becomes a bit more complicated if n is not a nice multiple of 10 (or whatever you set the "byParam" equal to). If that is the case then you can develop your start and end indeces, and then use mapply instead
#given start and end indeces
tmp_list<-mapply(function(startInd, endInd){
M[, startInd:endInd},
startInd=starts, endInd=ends)
Now lapply and mapply are still iterative, so I wouldn't expect massive improvement on time efficiency
EDIT
After discussion in the comments, here is a solution for the entire set up, not just the above question
tmp_list<-lapply(1:1000, function(i){
vect<-sample(c(0,1), 10*1000, replace=TRUE)
dim(vect)<-c(10, 1000)
vect
})
Let's break this down, it makes everything very simple.
We first create a random sample of 1's and 0's, of the length 10*1000 (the number of elements in each sub-matrix). We can then neatly convert that vector to a matrix by assigning it's dim attribute to be c(10, 1000), which changes its form to have 10 rows and 1000 columns. Then we return that into a list at the index i. We lapply over 1:1000, or iterate 1000 times.
I am still getting acquainted with R and I've found some small technicalities that I would really appreciate if someone could help me to solve them.
I am trying to write a loop using "for" for non-consecutive observations, so instead of a loop for a sequence from 1:1000 days I would like to run it for specific observations, let say, each 64 days
I tried defining a vector X with the sequence I want, but R returns an error and only uses the first numerical entrance of the vector.
X<-seq(from=1, to=1000, by=64)
for(i in 1:X){....
I hope someone can give me a hint how to do this
Thank you in advanced
What you need is
for( i in seq(from=1, to=1000, by=64) ) { print(i) }
1:X with try to create a vector from 1 to X stepping 1 at a time, and in this case X is a vector so it only takes the first element.
I am confused by the behavior of is.na() in a for loop in R.
I am trying to make a function that will create a sequence of numbers, do something to a matrix, summarize the resulting matrix based on the sequence of numbers, then modify the sequence of numbers based on the summary and repeat. I made a simple version of my function because I think it still gets at my problem.
library(plyr)
test <- function(desired.iterations, max.iterations)
{
rich.seq <- 4:34 ##make a sequence of numbers
details.table <- matrix(nrow=length(rich.seq), ncol=1, dimnames=list(rich.seq))
##generate a table where the row names are those numbers
print(details.table) ##that's what it looks like
temp.results <- matrix(nrow=10, ncol=2, dimnames=list(1:10))
##generate some sample data to summarize and fill into details.table
temp.results[,1] <- rep(5:6, 5)
temp.results[,2] <- rnorm(10)
print(temp.results) ##that's what it looks like
details.table[,1][row.names(details.table) %in% count(temp.results[,1])$x] <-
count(temp.results[,1])$freq
##summarize, subset to the appropriate rows in details.table, and fill in the summary
print(details.table)
for (i in 1:max.iterations)
{
rich.seq <- rich.seq[details.table < desired.iterations | is.na(details.table)]
## the idea would be to keep cutting this sequence of numbers down with
## successive iterations until the desired number of iterations per row in
## details.table was reached. in other words, in the real code i'd do
## something to details.table in the next line
print(rich.seq)
}
}
##call the function
test(desired.iterations=4, max.iterations=2)
On the first run through the for loop the rich.seq looks like I'd expect it to, where 5 & 6 are no longer in the sequence because both ended up with more than 4 iterations. However, on the second run, it spits out something unexpected.
UPDATE
Thanks for your help and also my apologies. After re-reading my original post it is not only less than clear, but I hadn't realized count was part of the plyr package, which I call in my full function but wasn't calling here. I'll try and explain better.
What I have working at the moment is a function that takes a matrix, randomizes it (in any of a number of different ways), then calculates some statistics on it. These stats are temporarily stored in a table--temp.results--where temp.results[,1] is the sum of the non zero elements in each column, and temp.results[,2] is a different summary statistic for that column. I save these results to a csv file (and append them to the same file at subsequent iterations), because looping through it and rbinding hogs a lot of memory.
The problem is that certain column sums (temp.results[,1]) are sampled very infrequently. In order to sample those sufficiently requires many many iterations, and the resulting .csv files would stretch into the hundreds of gigabytes.
What I want to do is create and then update a table (details.table) at each iteration that keeps track of how many times each column sum actually got sampled. When a given element in the table reaches the desired.iterations, I want it to be excluded from the vector rich.seq, so that only columns that haven't received the desired.iterations are actually saved to the csv file. The max.iterations argument will be used in a break() statement in case things are taking too long.
So, what I was expecting in the example case is the exact same line for rich.seq for both iterations, since I didn't actually do anything to change it. I believe that flodel is definitely right that my problem lies in comparing a matrix (details.table) of length longer than rich.seq, leading to unexpected results. However, I don't want the dimensions of details.table to change. Perhaps I can solve the problem implementing %in% somehow when I redefine rich.seq in the for loop?
I agree you should improve your question. However, I think I can spot what is going wrong.
You compute details.table before the for loop. It is a matrix with same length as rich.seq when it was first initialized (length(4:34), i.e. 31).
Inside the for loop, details.table < desired.iterations | is.na(details.table) is then a logical vector of length 31. On the first loop iteration,
rich.seq <- rich.seq[details.table < desired.iterations | is.na(details.table)]
will result in reducing the length of rich.seq. But on the second loop iteration, unless details.table is redefined (not the case), you are trying to subset rich.seq by a logical vector of longer length than rich.seq. This will certainly lead to unexpected results.
You probably meant to redefine details.table as part of your for loop.
(Also I am surprised to see you never used temp.results[,2].)
Thanks to flodel for setting me off on the right track. It had nothing to do with is.na but rather the lengths of vectors I was comparing.
That said, I set the initial values of the details.table to zero to avoid the added complexity of the is.na statement.
This code works, and can be modified to do what I described above.
library(plyr)
test <- function(desired.iterations, max.iterations)
{
rich.seq <- 4:34 ##make a sequence of numbers
details.table <- matrix(nrow=length(rich.seq), ncol=1, dimnames=list(rich.seq)) ##generate a table where the row names are those numbers
details.table[,1] <- 0
print(details.table) ##that's what it looks like
temp.results <- matrix(nrow=10, ncol=2, dimnames=list(1:10)) ##generate some sample data to summarize and fill into details.table
temp.results[,1] <- rep(5:6, 5)
temp.results[,2] <- rnorm(10)
print(temp.results) ##that's what it looks like
details.table[,1][row.names(details.table) %in% count(temp.results[,1])$x] <- count(temp.results[,1])$freq ##summarize, subset to the appropriate rows in details.table, and fill in the summary
print(details.table)
for (i in 1:max.iterations)
{
rich.seq <- row.names(details.table)[details.table[,1] < desired.iterations]
print(rich.seq)
}
}
Rather than trying to cut down the rich.seq I just redefine it every iteration based on whatever happens with details.table during the previous iteration.