> . matr def matti[2,2]=c(maxdouble)
>
> . matr list matti
>
> symmetric matti[2,2]
> c1 c2
> r1 1
> r2 3 8.99e+307
>
> Note that, when I try to change one entry of the matrix
> matti, Stata appears to note that the matrix is square and to
> do some kind of unsolicited approximate-symmetry test, find
> the matrix to be approximately symmetric, and then replace it
> with something exactly symmetric in order to save space.
This seems to be a display issue:
. matrix test = (1,2\3,4)
. matrix list test
test[2,2]
c1 c2
r1 1 2
r2 3 4
. matrix test[2, 2] = c(maxdouble)
. matrix list test
symmetric test[2,2]
c1 c2
r1 1
r2 3 8.99e+307
. di test[1,2]
2
Jean Salvati
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Newson, Roger B
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:51 AM
> To: statalist
> Subject: st: Storing infinite confidence intervals in Stata matrices
>
> Fellow Statalisters (especially StataCorp):
>
> I have a query about Stata matrices (as distinct from Mata
> matrices). In some of my programs, I store confidence
> intervals in Stata matrices with
> 1 row per confidence interval and columns containing the
> point estimates, the lower limits and the upper limits.
> Sometimes, confidence limits should be plus or minus infinity
> (eg the Clopper-Pearson CI for the log odds, the Mehta CI for
> the log odds ratio, the Hodges-Lehmann median difference). In
> a previous discussion with Nick Cox and Bill Gould in the
> Stata 6 era, I was advised to use very high-magnitude numbers
> (+1e+300 or -1e+300) to represent infinite confidence limits.
> Under Stata 9, we presumably might prefer to use plus or
> minus c(maxdouble), which is approximately 8.99e+307 in my
> Stata. These can be inserted into Stata matrices, as in the
> following example (in the 2006/01/20 version of Stata 9.1
> under Windows XP):
>
> . matr list matti
>
> matti[3,3]
> c1 c2 c3
> r1 1 2 3
> r2 4 5 6
> r3 7 8 9
>
> . matr def matti[3,3]=c(maxdouble)
>
> . matr list matti
>
> matti[3,3]
> c1 c2 c3
> r1 1 2 3
> r2 4 5 6
> r3 7 8 8.99e+307
>
> However, last night, I discovered an unexpected feature of
> Stata matrices, using the following example:
>
> . matr def matti=(1,2\3,4)
>
> . matr list matti
>
> matti[2,2]
> c1 c2
> r1 1 2
> r2 3 4
>
> . matr def matti[2,2]=c(maxdouble)
>
> . matr list matti
>
> symmetric matti[2,2]
> c1 c2
> r1 1
> r2 3 8.99e+307
>
> Note that, when I try to change one entry of the matrix
> matti, Stata appears to note that the matrix is square and to
> do some kind of unsolicited approximate-symmetry test, find
> the matrix to be approximately symmetric, and then replace it
> with something exactly symmetric in order to save space. The
> same thing happens when I use the old Stata 6 magic number
> instead of the new Stata 9 magic number:
>
> . matr def matti=(1,2\3,4)
>
> . matr list matti
>
> matti[2,2]
> c1 c2
> r1 1 2
> r2 3 4
>
> . matr def matti[2,2]=1e+300
>
> . matr list matti
>
> symmetric matti[2,2]
> c1 c2
> r1 1
> r2 3 1.00e+300
>
> This feature has got me worried. Unsurprisingly, it does not
> seem to be found in Mata matrices, but reappears once the
> Mata matrix is converted into a Stata matrix. The following
> example illustrates this feature:
>
>
> . mata: mitzi=(1,2\3,4)
>
> . mata:mitzi
> 1 2
> +---------+
> 1 | 1 2 |
> 2 | 3 4 |
> +---------+
>
> . mata: maggi=st_numscalar("c(maxdouble)")
>
> . mata:maggi
> 8.9885e+307
>
> . mata:mitzi[2,2]=maggi
>
> . mata:mitzi
> 1 2
> +-----------------------------+
> 1 | 1 2 |
> 2 | 3 8.9885e+307 |
> +-----------------------------+
>
> . mata:st_matrix("muttli",mitzi)
>
> . matr list muttli
>
> symmetric muttli[2,2]
> c1 c2
> r1 1
> r2 3 8.99e+307
>
> An obvious fix to this feature is to represent infinite
> confidence limits using Stata missing values, which seem to
> be allowed in Stata matrices in Stata 9. We might use .a to
> represent minus infinity and .z to represent plus infinity.
> The following example demonstrates Stata missing values in
> Stata matrices:
>
> . matr def matti=(2,1,3\5,4,6\8,7,9)
>
> . matr list matti
>
> matti[3,3]
> c1 c2 c3
> r1 2 1 3
> r2 5 4 6
> r3 8 7 9
>
> . matr def matti[2,2]=.a
>
> . matr def matti[3,3]=.z
>
> . matr list matti
>
> matti[3,3]
> c1 c2 c3
> r1 2 1 3
> r2 5 .a 6
> r3 8 7 .z
>
> This might be the best solution to the immediate problem.
> However, these unsolicited symmetry checks seem to raise a
> more general issue, namely whether we should use Stata
> matrices in programs to store arbitrary arrays of
> double-precision numbers, unless we know that these arrays of
> numbers can never be square. For instance, I might want a
> Stata program to pass an array of numbers as an option, or an
> argument, to another Stata program. In these circumstances,
> is it safer to use Mata matrices rather than Stata matrices?
> And would it be a good idea to rewrite the Stata programs as
> Mata programs? (I note that Mata programs can call Stata
> programs, as well as vice versa - see [M-5] stata().)
>
> Best wishes (and thanks in advance)
>
> Roger
>
>
> Roger Newson
> Lecturer in Medical Statistics
> POSTAL ADDRESS:
> Respiratory Epidemiology and Public Health Group National
> Heart and Lung Institute at Imperial College London St Mary's
> Campus Norfolk Place London W2 1PG STREET ADDRESS:
> Respiratory Epidemiology and Public Health Group National
> Heart and Lung Institute at Imperial College London
> 47 Praed Street
> Paddington
> London W1 1NR
> TELEPHONE: (+44) 020 7594 0939
> FAX: (+44) 020 7594 0942
> EMAIL: [email protected]
> WEBSITE: http://www.kcl-phs.org.uk/rogernewson/
> Opinions expressed are those of the author, not of the institution.
>
>
> *
> * 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/
>
*
* 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/
