Current gretl CVS and the Windows snapshot at
contain release candidate 1 for gretl 1.7.6.
Please note that this version involves a backward-incompatible
change with respect to gretl 1.7.5 and earlier, affecting
user-defined functions that (a) take a named list of variables as
an argument and (b) do things with the list-member variables by
means of a "foreach" loop on the list.
I won't go into the rationale for this change here. Anyone who
wants the details may look at the proceedings on the gretl-devel
list for July, which were mostly taken up with this issue:
There's also a brief discussion in the chapter of the User's Guide
that deals with user-defined functions. But here's the bottom
line for users:
* If you want to "get hold of" a list-member variable in the
context noted above, you have to use the syntax listname.varname,
where listname is the name of the list in question and varname is
the name of the list member. (This is required only if you're
working with a list that was supplied as a function argument.)
Trivial example: inside a function, creating new variables which
are the cubes of the members of an original list, xlist, where
xlist is an argument to the function.
loop foreach i xlist
$i_3 = $i^3
loop foreach i xlist
$i_3 = (xlist.$i)^3
In the new scheme, "$i" gets the name of the list-member variable
alright, but the variable is not "visible" under that name within
the function. So on the right-hand side of the expression that
creates the cubes, we need "(xlist.$i)^3". (Well, actually the
parentheses are not required, but wearing your seatbelt is in
general a good idea.)
Although this may affect quite a large number of existing
functions, we believe the effects are localized and the update
should be trivial. If anyone has a function for which the update
is _not_ trivial, please let us know.
I got inconsistent results when running PCA using covariance matrix in gretl. Please see attached TSY_curve file for the data used. Please see attached PCA_problem file that illustrated the problem when verified with R.
The result highlighted in yellow is different from R result and appears in consistent with a reduced components result. I appreciate if you can look into it. Thank you.
I just tried to upload a function package written by me to the gretl
package server. But I got an error "couldn't parse
GJR-garchm.gfn was what I tried to upload. What does this message mean?
Is this becuase I use Chinese description? See the attached gfn file
I ran my set of panel data with Arellano-Bond.
When I asked (first option in the "analysis" drop down menu) for the
predicted, adjusted & residual, I am surprised because some values don't
If the e-mail doesn't break the resulting table I am sending an excerpt (in
Portuguese, but I am supplying a translation in brackets...):
CASE_MIX (my dependent variable) ajustado (adjusted/fitted) resíduo
FAMA 0,936894 1,347494 -0,410600
IPOL 2,278897 1,048024
Does anybody know what is wrong here?
Thanks in advance
I run a logit model and I found that the key output of the logit model
includes McFadden R-squared. This look great. However, I also saw an
"Adjusted R-squared" reported. I am a little bit confused about it. Does the
"Adjusted R-squared" have any particular definition or meaning for a
I would like to pick your brain on the usage of "," and ";" in
statistical notation in other European countries. In Turkey ve use
comma as the decimal seperator and I intend to follow this in my
econometrics lecture notes. I prepare my notes using LaTeX and I want
them to be perfect not only in content but also in grammar and
Using for example N(9,6, 1,34) looks confusing. Also, within text
using for example "the four variances respectively are 0,2, 0,4, 0,6
and 0,8..." is problematic. I can solve the problem using N(9,6; 1,34)
for the first example and using "the four variances respectively are
0,2 and 0,4 and 0,6 and 0,8..." for the second example.
Now, the other option is to employ the US standard notation of using
dots as the decimal seperator but being the perfectionist that I am, I
would be uncomfortable seeing commas in the various gretl screenshots
(from Turkish translation) used in my lecture notes while I am using
dots in the text myself.
So my question is: How common is the use of comma as the decimal
seperator in econometric texts in other European countries? I am
guessing that some authors say in Germany, Italy or France would use
"," while some prefer using "," but can you say one is more accepted
than the other? Are students used to seeing and dealing with both
types of notation that they see in different sources?
I am currently leaning on using commas but I guess I will use dots if
that is the general approach in econometric textbooks even in Europe.
I appreciate any feedback and comments
“Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far
more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting
moment.” - Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
(excuse me if you receive this email from different lists)
Dear gretl users,
I have an Operations Research degree from the Faculty of Sciences of the
University of Lisbon, which is organizing the EURO XXIV Lisbon. Even if I am
not working in the OR area, I have a special interest, of calling your
attention for this event. With this message I hope that you feel motivation
to participate (specially if gretl contributes for the paper).
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:00 PM, <gretl-users-request(a)lists.wfu.edu> wrote:
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:20:20 -0500
> From: Alan G Isaac <alan.isaac(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Gretl-users] To the point, or to ,,,?!
> To: Gretl list <gretl-users(a)lists.wfu.edu>
> Message-ID: <4B61B944.8010405(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> On 1/28/2010 10:37 AM, Len Vir wrote:
> > In French, I use the comma,
> > in English, I use the dot.
> > It's just custom.
> Let's take a stand.
> I am going to suggest that when doing science,
> the right thing to do is use a dot when a decimal
> separator is needed. This is really closest to being
> an international standard in economic terms
> (US, UK, China, Japan, India).
> So that this does not just sound like US provincialism,
> I will also say that the right thing to do is use the
> metric system for lengths and weights.
> But if you use the comma package in LaTeX,
> you can easily switch back and forth.
> Alan Isaac
> I would like to pick your brain on the usage of "," and ";" in
> statistical notation in other European countries.
This message is from Quebec (Canada).
Quebec is a French province in an English surrounding.
I work in both French and English.
In French, I use the comma,
in English, I use the dot.
It's just custom.
Dear Gretl community,
I want to create a *index* using five variables using gretl's principal
components analysis and I would like to know if I'm doing it properly. I'll
describe my steps:
Step 1: Compute principal components (Main window, View -> Principal
Step 2: Save all components (PC1, ..., PC5);
Step 3: *index* = PC1 + ... + PC5.
I know this is a silly little question, but I have no background in this
kind of stuff :(
Enviado de meu iPhone