Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
Maarten Buis <[email protected]> |

To |
[email protected] |

Subject |
Re: st: gamma |

Date |
Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:19:26 +0200 |

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Jason Rosenberg wrote: > but I read the help function guide and help lngamma(), but I still get different results for the gamma function from that of RGui(32-bit) as in: > > I type this in stata: > di lngamma(3/4) > > and get: > .20328095 > > but in R I get gamma(3/4)=1.225417 As was mentioned many times before in this thread: -lngamma()- gives you the natural logarithm of the gamma function and the natural logarithm of the gamma function is not the same as the gamma function. The way to get the gamma function is to type -di exp(lngamma(3/4)) as exp(ln(something)) = something. However, as was also mentioned before, you will almost always want to work with the natural logarithm of the gamma function. The problem is that the gamma function can become extremely large very quickly, so large that computers cannot hold that number, so called overflow. For example try in R: gamma(175) or in Stata: exp(lngamma(175)). However, the ln(gamma) is a number that computers have no problem with (try in R: lgamma(175) and in Stata lngamma(175)). So, working in terms of ln(gamma) you can work with inputs like 175, as long as you rewrote your formula in terms of ln(gamma) instead of gamma. Hope this helps, Maarten --------------------------------- Maarten L. Buis WZB Reichpietschufer 50 10785 Berlin Germany http://www.maartenbuis.nl --------------------------------- * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/ * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**st: gamma***From:*Jason Rosenberg <[email protected]>

**Re: st: gamma***From:*Nick Cox <[email protected]>

**RE: st: gamma***From:*Jason Rosenberg <[email protected]>

**Re: st: gamma***From:*Nick Cox <[email protected]>

**RE: st: gamma***From:*Jason Rosenberg <[email protected]>

- Prev by Date:
**RE: st: gamma** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: gamma** - Previous by thread:
**RE: st: gamma** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: gamma** - Index(es):