Stata The Stata listserver
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

RE: st: RE: Creating a dummy variable that 'marks out' useless


From   "Nick Cox" <[email protected]>
To   <[email protected]>
Subject   RE: st: RE: Creating a dummy variable that 'marks out' useless
Date   Wed, 15 Dec 2004 03:00:44 -0000

I can't reproduce your results here. I get 
the same results as Scott. Your logic that 

0 & 0 & 1 == 1 

is not the same as Stata's (or Boole's). 
In other words, my code appears equivalent 
to Scott's. 

That's using in this example

gen nmark = natch < . & ednatch < . & marker != 0

Nick 
[email protected] 

Tony [= Peter A.] Lachenbruch wrote a note in the 
STB on < . 

STB-9   ip2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  A keyboard shortcut
        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  P. A. Lachenbruch
        9/92    p.9; STB Reprints Vol 2, p.46                    (no commands)
        keyboard shortcut to indicate nonmissing values

It's now recommended practice by StataCorp given that != . includes
any .a through .z. 

Clive Nicholas
 
> Scott Merryman replied:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > . mark mark2 if edconch != .
> 
> > . replace mark2 = 0 if conch == .
>   (0 real changes made)
> 
> > . replace mark2 = 0 if marker == 0
>   (6 real changes made)
> 
> [...]
> 
> This worked perfectly: thanks!
> 
> Nick Cox replied:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > gen mark = conch < . & edconch < . & marker != 0
> 
> [...]
> 
> Thanks for this: this also worked almost as well. Why the difference?
> Well, consider this block of data for Plaid Cymru (National Party of
> Wales) net votes, where -mark4- represents Scott's routine, -nmark-
> represents Nick's routine and -marker- was an -egen, tag()- generated
> indicator marking out unavoidable duplicate cases:
> 
>          natch    ednatch    marker     mark4      nmark
>   1. -4.727228    21.4088         1         1          1
>   2.  .7938523   9.794947         1         1          1
>   3. -1.833212  -4.599777         1         1          1
>   4.  2.022674   24.89381         1         1          1
>   5.  1.016729   5.512588         1         1          1
>   6.  3.982042   5.620074         1         1          1
>   7. -1.833212  -4.599777         0         0          0
>   8.  2.022674  -2.766565         0         0          0
>   9.  2.022674  -2.766565         0         0          0
>  10. -1.833212   21.08436         0         0          0
>  11.         .          .         1         0          1
>  12.         .          .         1         0          1
>  13.         .          .         1         0          1
>  14.         .          .         1         0          1
>  15.         .          .         1         0          1
>  16.         .          .         1         0          1
>  17.         .          .         0         0          0
>  18.         .          .         0         0          0
>  19.         .          .         0         0          0
>  20.         .          .         0         0          0
>  21.         .          .         0         0          0
>  22.         .          .         0         0          0
>  23.         .          .         0         0          0
>  24. -1.250048   9.806999         1         1          1
>  25. -1.039213  -1.973771         1         1          1
>  26.  .0781536  -.9345583         1         1          1
>  27.  .1249657  -1.012712         1         1          1
>  28.  .6216435          .         1         0          0
>  29.  1.577682   5.098733         1         1          1
>  30.         .          .         1         0          1
> 
> Scott's routine correctly marks out the missing observations 
> 11-16 and 30;
> Nick's routine marks them _in_ because marker=1 (but I don't 
> need these
> marked cases if they're missing on at least one of the vote 
> variables).
> 
> However, Nick's approach is attractive as it attempts to do 
> it all in a
> single line, so the question is whether or not Nick's code 
> can be tweaked
> to correctly mark out these cases. This isn't to disparage Scott's
> approach just because he does it in three.
> 
> Thanks to Scott for introducing me to -mark- and to Nick for 
> thinking up
> such a lateral way to -generate- (I would never have thought 
> to use "<.").
> :)
> 

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index