[R-SIG-Mac]bug in lm()?

Jan de Leeuw deleeuw@stat.ucla.edu
Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:48:39 -0800

O, good. So 5.5 is not a bug and lm(c(1:10)~c(1:10)) is legal R,
but only fits the intercept. I don't have any R-1.4.0 versions left,
but someone reported a similar lm bug in Darwin 1.4.0 recently.

On Friday, March 1, 2002, at 10:19 AM, Thomas Lumley wrote:

> I can't reproduce (b) on any other system I have access to, but it does
> seem to be a bug. Anyone else with 1.4.0 on Darwin find this? Does it
> still happen with
> 	lm(c(1:10)~1)
> which would be much more serious?
Jan de Leeuw; Professor and Chair, UCLA Department of Statistics;
US mail: 9432 Boelter Hall, Box 951554, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1554
phone (310)-825-9550;  fax (310)-206-5658;  email: deleeuw@stat.ucla.edu
homepage: http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~deleeuw
           No matter where you go, there you are. --- Buckaroo Banzai