Thank you so much Martin for your help. I rewrote it step by step and
actually the matrix was A[1,1] not A[1,2] for me.
Have a great day,
Nrina
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Martin Weiss <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <>
>
>
>
> I am not quite sure how I can provide you with additional support. If it is
> all about the marginal effect, I would have Stata display the matrix with
> the marginal effects alluded to in an earlier post, and check the contents.
> You must extract the one component that you are interested in, and I suspect
> that you somehow are grabbing the wrong one - which would explain the
> observation that not one, but all of them are missing.
>
>
>
> HTH
> Martin
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Nirina F
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. September 2009 16:16
> An: [email protected]
> Betreff: Re: st: AW: why is this graph all over the place?
>
> Dear Martin,
> Using levelsof does make a difference. But I don't understand why the
> loop doesn' work and therefore doesn't record the new marginal effects
> calculated into marg when I put my own equation.
> And I really don't change anything else than the variables.
> Thanks,
> nirina
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:02 AM, Nick Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Good point. I had forgotten that part of the history. Some if not all
> versions of -levels- did not support non-integer values.
>>
>> Nick
>> [email protected]
>>
>> Martin Weiss
>>
>> "-levels- and -levelsof- had, and have, the same functionality, so any
>> other guesses are off target."
>>
>>
>> Why does -levels- make Stata choke, then, in this example, where
> -levelsof-
>> does not?
>>
>>
>>
>> *************
>> clear*
>>
>> input x
>> 1
>> 2
>> 3
>> 4.5
>> end
>>
>> compress
>> list, noobs
>>
>> levelsof x
>> levels x
>> *************
>>
>>
>>
>> HTH
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: [email protected]
>> [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Nick Cox
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. September 2009 11:33
>> An: [email protected]
>> Betreff: RE: st: AW: why is this graph all over the place?
>>
>> -levelsof- was -levels- was -vallist-.
>>
>> That is, a user-written command called -vallist- was rewritten as
>> -levels- which was then adopted by StataCorp within the life-time of
>> Stata 8. In Stata 9 the name was changed to -levelsof- because the name
>> "levels" seemed too good to use on that command.
>>
>> My guess is that it was imagined that the name might reappear for a
>> different purpose as part of the factor variables project.
>>
>> -levels- and -levelsof- had, and have, the same functionality, so any
>> other guesses are off target.
>>
>> Nick
>> [email protected]
>>
>> Nirina F
>>
>> Replacing it with -levelsof- made it work!
>>
>> Martin Weiss
>>
>>> See, just when I thought I knew Stata: -levels- is not the
>> abbreviation for
>>> -levelsof-, it is an out-of-date command, apparently with limited
>>> functionality.
>>
>>
>> *
>> * For searches and help try:
>> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
>> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
>> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>>
>
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
>
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
