---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lai, Ronald <rolai at hbs.edu> Date: Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [gov2001-l] PS4#2 & 1f To: "gov2001-l at lists.fas.harvard.edu" <gov2001-l at lists.fas.harvard.edu> Thanks all. I get it! Best. *From:* gov2001-l-bounces at lists.fas.harvard.edu [mailto: gov2001-l-bounces at lists.fas.harvard.edu] *On Behalf Of *Patrick Lam *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2009 3:11 AM *To:* gov2001-l at lists.fas.harvard.edu *Subject:* Re: [gov2001-l] PS4#2 & 1f whoops, John-Paul is also right, the y-axis should be on the same scale. On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Patrick Lam <plam at fas.harvard.edu> wrote: It is actually the x-axis that needs to be scaled the same. Ronald, you're right that technically you can do the same by plotting the two curves on two different graphs and then eyeballing them, as long as the x-axis is the same. However, since we can shift likelihoods up and down, it's easier to compare by putting them on the same graph, which is what the problem is asking. On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 11:05 PM, John-Paul Ferguson <jpferg at mit.edu> wrote: eyeballing the results? If you plot the two using par(mfrow=c(2,1)), the curvature will look almost the same, but the scale of the y-axis will be quite different. You have to plot them on the same scale in order to compare the curvature. Shifting one of them vertically so that their maxima have the same y-value makes it easy to plot them on the same graph. --John-Paul On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Lai, Ronald <rolai at hbs.edu> wrote: All, Since both distributions are Binomials with N=10, the log likelihood f(x) would be the same for both. Why is it necessary to even have an indicator variable? Essentially f(x)^d * f(x)^(1-d) = f(x).. I guess if one distr was Bin w/ N=10 and the other was N<>10, having the indicator variable makes sense. I'll operate on the assumption that the user of my R code can alter Ns for the two distributions. I'm a bit confused about PS4#1f 1) I'm assuming reparameterization is not necessary for plotting so I rewrote the f(x) to deal w/ this 2) Vertical shifts? Is it not the same as using par(mfrow=c(2,1)) and eyeballing the results? Feel like I'm missing something. Best. PS. Sparsha, in your f(x) below, you have not defined n or g. to my knowledge, the function also does not require an iterative process (per your for-loop) *From:* gov2001-l-bounces at lists.fas.harvard.edu [mailto: gov2001-l-bounces at lists.fas.harvard.edu] *On Behalf Of *sparsha saha *Sent:* Friday, February 27, 2009 3:41 PM *To:* gov2001-l at lists.fas.harvard.edu *Subject:* [gov2001-l] R hates me is anyone getting this error message for problem 2 on this week's problem set Error in pnorm(pa3) : element 1 is empty; the part of the args list of '.Internal' being evaluated was: (q, mean, sd, lower.tail, log.p) I get this when I run my log likelihood function in R and then try to use optim on it: + pies2 <- pnorm(pa2) + pies3 <- pnorm(pa3) + for (i in 1:n) { + blaba <- ifelse(g > 0, sum(y2 * log(pies2) + (n - y2) * log(1 - pies2)), sum(y2 * log(pies3) + (n - y2) * log(1 - pies3))) + } + roe <- sum(blaba) / n + return(roe) + } = list(fnscale = -1), y = data, n = 10) Error in pnorm(pa3) : element 1 is empty; the part of the args list of '.Internal' being evaluated was: (q, mean, sd, lower.tail, log.p) _______________________________________________ gov2001-l mailing list gov2001-l at lists.fas.harvard.edu http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l _______________________________________________ gov2001-l mailing list gov2001-l at lists.fas.harvard.edu http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l -- Patrick Lam Department of Government and Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University

-- Patrick Lam Department of Government and Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University

_______________________________________________ gov2001-l mailing list gov2001-l at lists.fas.harvard.edu http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l