|
|  |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
Re: st: "r(2000) sometimes, but the data are always the same" --it was not a question about capture.
|
From |
Pablo Mitnik <[email protected]> |
|
To |
[email protected] |
|
Subject |
Re: st: "r(2000) sometimes, but the data are always the same" --it was not a question about capture. |
|
Date |
Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:41:15 -0600 |
I apologize to everyone for sending an attachment, and for mistakenly
thinking an answer to another question was for my question.
I did try to answer as best as I could to Austin Nichols's comments.
Indeed, I explained in detail what I was doing, and why I was doing it, and
sent full code showing all details about the loop, and also that I do
save estimation results.
I haven't had time to re-run the do file with trace on yet (and it takes
a long time for it to run . . . ), but I will do it shortly. I apologize
if it seemed I was ignoring Austin's advice -- not my
intention at all. I very much appreciate your answers.
Austin Nichols wrote:
You seem to have mistakenly thought answers to the email:
From: Joe McCrary <[email protected]>
Date: Feb 10, 2006 11:27 AM
Subject: st: How to keep a command running after a R(2000) error
(No Observations)
were answers to your question:
From: Pablo Mitnik <[email protected]>
Date: Feb 10, 2006 4:46 AM
Subject: st: r(2000) sometimes, but the data are always the same
and completely ignored the actual response to your question:
From: Austin Nichols <[email protected]>
Date: Feb 10, 2006 5:42 AM
Subject: Re: st: r(2000) sometimes, but the data are always the same
There seems to be no code representing the loop counter inside your
putative loop, and you don't seem to save estimation results, so I
can't see why you would be looping. Perhaps you should -set trace on-
so you can see where the error occurs, and let us know both that info,
and what you are looping over and why...
as evidenced by #2 in your follow-up. I would have guessed if you
choose to ignore the advice you do get the first time around, you're
unlikely to get more the second time around, but with two admonitions
to observe the rules of Statalist and one to read the subject lines of
posts, I appear to be wrong--you've already gotten 3 times as much
feedback as the first time.
On 2/10/06, Pablo Mitnik <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear all,
1. Thank you very much all of you who answered my r(2000) question.
2. Observe, however, that I didn't ask for help with keeping the loop
running. I knew how to deal with that -- as you can see in the code
attached, which I am sending in full this time, and which I didn't send
in full before because it didn't seem relevant to the question to me.
Again, my question was: how can it be that a few rounds of the loop
produce a "no observations" error, but most don't, given that the data
are exactly the same in all rounds.
*
* 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/
--
Pablo A. Mitnik
University of Wisconsin-Madison (http://www.wisc.edu/ )
Department of Sociology ( http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/)
Center on Wisconsin Strategy (http://www.cows.org/ )
1180 Observatory Drive
Room 7114A
Madison, WI 53706
TEL (608) 2621839
E-mail: [email protected]
*
* 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/
