do repeat

[drfg2008]

I would like simply to copy the reciprocal of a set of variable into another set of variables like that:

COMPUTE bOdd1_WIN_p.1 = 1/ bOdd1_WIN.1 .
COMPUTE bOdd1_WIN_p.2 = 1/ bOdd1_WIN.2 .
COMPUTE bOdd1_WIN_p.3 = 1/ bOdd1_WIN.3 .
COMPUTE bOdd1_WIN_p.4 = 1/ bOdd1_WIN.4 .
COMPUTE bOdd1_WIN_p.5 = 1/ bOdd1_WIN.5 .

but this won't work:


VECTOR bOdd1_WIN_p.(48).
DO REPEAT #i = 1 to 48.
COMPUTE bOdd1_WIN_p.(#i) = 1/bOdd1_WIN.(#i).
END REPEAT.
EXECUTE.

[Art Kendall]

it seems you need to have two lists of variables either 2 vectors or 2 list in do repeat.
try this untested approach
do repeat
    newvar = bOdd1_WIN_p.1 to bOdd1_WIN_p.48/
    oldvar = bOdd1_WIN.1   to bOdd1_WIN.48.
compute newvar= 1/oldvar.
end repeat.

On 4/25/2013 8:17 AM, drfg2008 [via SPSSX Discussion] wrote:

I would like simply to copy the reciprocal of a set of variable into another set of variables like that:

COMPUTE bOdd1_WIN_p.1 = 1/ bOdd1_WIN.1 .
COMPUTE bOdd1_WIN_p.2 = 1/ bOdd1_WIN.2 .
COMPUTE bOdd1_WIN_p.3 = 1/ bOdd1_WIN.3 .
COMPUTE bOdd1_WIN_p.4 = 1/ bOdd1_WIN.4 .
COMPUTE bOdd1_WIN_p.5 = 1/ bOdd1_WIN.5 .

but this won't work:


VECTOR bOdd1_WIN_p.(48).
DO REPEAT #i = 1 to 48.
COMPUTE bOdd1_WIN_p.(#i) = 1/bOdd1_WIN.(#i).
END REPEAT.
EXECUTE.

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707.html

To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click here.
NAML

[Andy W]

It works for me as long as you define the "bOdd1_WIN.(#i)" vector.

VECTOR bOdd1_WIN_p.(48).
VECTOR bOdd1_WIN. = bOdd1_WIN.1 to bOdd1_WIN.48.
DO REPEAT #i = 1 to 48.
COMPUTE bOdd1_WIN_p.(#i) = 1/bOdd1_WIN.(#i).
END REPEAT.
EXECUTE.

You have quite the way with variable names.

*******************************************************.
*complete example.
data list free / id.
begin data
1
2
3
4
5
end data.

vector bOdd1_WIN.(48).
loop #i = 1 to 48.
compute bOdd1_WIN.(#i) = RV.UNIFORM(1,5).
end loop.
exe.

*Old Code.
VECTOR bOdd1_WIN_p.(48).
DO REPEAT #i = 1 to 48.
COMPUTE bOdd1_WIN_p.(#i) = 1/bOdd1_WIN.(#i).
END REPEAT.
EXECUTE.
*This does not work since "bOdd1_WIN.(#i)" vector is not defined.

*Old code works if you define that vector.
match files file = *
/drop bOdd1_WIN_p.1 to bOdd1_WIN_p.48.
exe.

*Updated Code.
VECTOR bOdd1_WIN_p.(48).
VECTOR bOdd1_WIN. = bOdd1_WIN.1 to bOdd1_WIN.48.
DO REPEAT #i = 1 to 48.
COMPUTE bOdd1_WIN_p.(#i) = 1/bOdd1_WIN.(#i).
END REPEAT.
EXECUTE.
********************************************************.

[drfg2008]

Thanks, I forgot the second vector command:

VECTOR bOdd1_WIN. = bOdd1_WIN.1 to bOdd1_WIN.48.

now it works.


Frank

[David Marso]

Edited:  Changes in BOLD.
If the numbers are all non zero then you can nuke the very small fudge factor and remove the recode.
If you have negative values *AND* 0's) then you will need to modify the recode (I'm sure you can sort that).
The FORMAT and VARIABLE WIDTH are simply for visual confirmation.

DATA LIST / X1 TO X40 1-40.
BEGIN DATA
1616313136163163163615616316731673516351
7363137130003115235553123153163131310130
END DATA.

MATRIX.
GET X / VARIABLES X1 TO X40.
SAVE (1/(X+.00000000000000000000000001)) / OUTFILE *.
END MATRIX.

RECODE ALL (1.000001 THRU HI=SYSMIS).

FORMATS ALL (F20.16).
VARIABLE WIDTH ALL (20).

drfg2008 wrote

Thanks, I forgot the second vector command:

VECTOR bOdd1_WIN. = bOdd1_WIN.1 to bOdd1_WIN.48.

now it works.


Frank

[Richard Ristow]

At 09:43 AM 4/25/2013, David Marso wrote:

>If the numbers are all positive then you can nuke the very small fudge factor
>and remove the recode.
>If you have negative values then you will need to modify the recode (I'm
>sure you can sort that).

>RECODE ALL (1.000001 THRU HI=SYSMIS).

I think a cleaner way to do this RECODE, sidestepping having to
choose a fudge factor, is

RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 = COPY)
             (ELSE        = SYSMIS).

But actually, I think the dividing-by-zero problem is a strong reason
to do the computation in a transformation program, rather than MATRIX.

=====================
To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
[hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
command. To leave the list, send the command
SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
INFO REFCARD

[David Marso]

Thank You for that Richard,
I like your mop up much better than mine.
using the Transformation program one would:
DO REPEAT v= list1 / w=list2.
DO IF (v NE 0).
COMPUTE w=1/v.
END IF.
END REPEAT.
---
I suppose my MATRIX hack is a little unorthodox but by choosing an INFINITESIMAL
term to add to the vector I don't need to explicitly check and it comes back into SPSS with a fudge factor which can not be detected in the precision available to the main system.
AND it SLAMS it all through with one line of clever code.  
MATRIX is a cranked up energizer bunny when it comes down to performance!!!
It truly excels at vector based operations but is a little slow with item by item looping.
Now, I have no idea how MATRIX can represent such very small values and avoid the zero divide infinity.
But, AFAICT it works like a charm.  The only mop up required are the HUGE lingering values which require a RECODE or other technique to remove.
If there is a downside to this I would be most interested in your analysis and counterexamples.
 

Richard Ristow wrote

At 09:43 AM 4/25/2013, David Marso wrote:

>If the numbers are all positive then you can nuke the very small fudge factor
>and remove the recode.
>If you have negative values then you will need to modify the recode (I'm
>sure you can sort that).

>RECODE ALL (1.000001 THRU HI=SYSMIS).

I think a cleaner way to do this RECODE, sidestepping having to
choose a fudge factor, is

RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 = COPY)
             (ELSE        = SYSMIS).

But actually, I think the dividing-by-zero problem is a strong reason
to do the computation in a transformation program, rather than MATRIX.

=====================
To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
[hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
command. To leave the list, send the command
SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
INFO REFCARD

[Art Kendall]

OOPS! sysmis on right side of assignment operator.
RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 = COPY)
             (ELSE    -999    = ).
missing values all (-999).
On 4/25/2013 12:15 PM, Richard Ristow [via SPSSX Discussion] wrote:

At 09:43 AM 4/25/2013, David Marso wrote:

>If the numbers are all positive then you can nuke the very small fudge factor
>and remove the recode.
>If you have negative values then you will need to modify the recode (I'm
>sure you can sort that).

>RECODE ALL (1.000001 THRU HI=SYSMIS).

I think a cleaner way to do this RECODE, sidestepping having to
choose a fudge factor, is

RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 = COPY)
             (ELSE        = SYSMIS).

But actually, I think the dividing-by-zero problem is a strong reason
to do the computation in a transformation program, rather than MATRIX.

=====================
To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
[hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
command. To leave the list, send the command
SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
INFO REFCARD

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719720.html

To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click here.
NAML

[David Marso]

In principle I agree with the sysmis on right side for the most part.
However in this case it is a direct correlate to the notion that the SYSTEM could NOT carry out some operation namely an attempted division by 0 (which would indeed end up as SYSMIS in normal calculations after spewing a host of warning messages.  Protecting the division with DO IF will render the same result.  So, my using SYSMIS in this case is deliberate and significant in reflecting the inability of the system to caary out the computation.
--
In MATRIX such an misadventure results in a fatal untrappable error and SPSS takes its ball and goes home (end of game), leading to unhappy emails and or phone calls.  

My shameless hack attempts to capitalize on the cranked up energizer bunny properties of MATRIX vector efficiency while gracefully avoiding division by 0.  It is crucial to mop up afterwards internally to avoid ludicrous results but it is easier than protecting EVERY DIVISION in MATRIX with the following awkward monstrosity.

DO IF (zero_check_matrix).
COMPUTE newarray = oldarray / value.
ELSE.
COMPUTE newarray=MAKE(NROW(oldarray),NCOL(oldArray),0).
LOOP #=1 TO NROW(oldarray).
LOOP ##=1 TO NCOL(oldArray).
COMPUTE newarray(#,##)=oldarray(#,##)/value.
END LOOP.
END LOOP.
END IF.

This also ends up being a PITA because one must take great care to treat the resulting 0 appropriately in subsequent calculations.  In the HACK mode one can test for HUGE values which are distinguishable from 0's which can legitimately arise from 0 numerators .
Yeah, there are trade offs, and I am nowhere near solving every weird thing that can crop up in complex situations.
But, I do stand by my using SYSMIS for this situation ;-)
--

Art Kendall wrote

OOPS! sysmis on right side of
      assignment operator.
      RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 = COPY)
     
                   (ELSE    -999    = ).
     
      missing values all (-999).
      Art Kendall
Social Research Consultants
      On 4/25/2013 12:15 PM, Richard Ristow [via SPSSX Discussion]
      wrote:
   
     At 09:43 AM 4/25/2013, David Marso wrote:
     
     
      >If the numbers are all positive then you can nuke the very
      small fudge factor
     
      >and remove the recode.
     
      >If you have negative values then you will need to modify the
      recode (I'm
     
      >sure you can sort that).
     
     
      >RECODE ALL (1.000001 THRU HI=SYSMIS).
     
     
      I think a cleaner way to do this RECODE, sidestepping having to
     
      choose a fudge factor, is
     
     
      RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 = COPY)
     
                   (ELSE        = SYSMIS).
     
     
      But actually, I think the dividing-by-zero problem is a strong
      reason
     
      to do the computation in a transformation program, rather than
      MATRIX.
     
     
      =====================
     
      To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
     
      [hidden email]
      (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
     
      command. To leave the list, send the command
     
      SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
     
      For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
     
      INFO REFCARD
     
     
     
     
     
        If you reply to this email, your
          message will be added to the discussion below:
        http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719720.html 
     
     
        To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email
        [hidden email] 
        To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click
          here .
        NAML

[Art Kendall]

I admit it is a soapbox topic.  

You surely are not a beginner and despite having used SPSS since 1972 I still learn from your posts.  However, people who follow  the list or search the archives are at least to some degree learners.

To aid debugging and for quality assurance review I try to have people catch all instances of sysmis, redraft the syntax,  and provide for that condition in the transformations.  Then assign a missing value that can be labelled.
Redrafting would not be finished until all sysmis had been changed to to user missing with value labels
for example in this instance I would put
value labels varlist -999 'missing to avoid dividing by zero' .


On 4/25/2013 1:47 PM, David Marso [via SPSSX Discussion] wrote:

In principle I agree with the sysmis on right side for the most part.
However in this case it is a direct correlate to the notion that the SYSTEM could NOT carry out some operation namely an attempted division by 0 (which would indeed end up as SYSMIS in normal calculations after spewing a host of warning messages.  Protecting the division with DO IF will render the same result.  So, my using SYSMIS in this case is deliberate and significant in reflecting the inability of the system to caary out the computation.
--
In MATRIX such an misadventure results in a fatal untrappable error and SPSS takes its ball and goes home (end of game), leading to unhappy emails and or phone calls.  

My shameless hack attempts to capitalize on the cranked up energizer bunny properties of MATRIX vector efficiency while gracefully avoiding division by 0.  It is crucial to mop up afterwards internally to avoid ludicrous results but it is easier than protecting EVERY DIVISION in MATRIX with the following awkward monstrosity.

DO IF (zero_check_matrix).
COMPUTE newarray = oldarray / value.
ELSE.
COMPUTE newarray=MAKE(NROW(oldarray),NCOL(oldArray),0).
LOOP #=1 TO NROW(oldarray).
LOOP ##=1 TO NCOL(oldArray).
COMPUTE newarray(#,##)=oldarray(#,##)/value.
END LOOP.
END LOOP.
END IF.

This also ends up being a PITA because one must take great care to treat the resulting 0 appropriately in subsequent calculations.  In the HACK mode one can test for HUGE values which are distinguishable from 0's which can legitimately arise from 0 numerators .
Yeah, there are trade offs, and I am nowhere near solving every weird thing that can crop up in complex situations.
But, I do stand by my using SYSMIS for this situation ;-)
--

Art Kendall wrote

OOPS! sysmis on right side of
      assignment operator.
      RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 = COPY)
     
                   (ELSE    -999    = ).
     
      missing values all (-999).
      Art Kendall
Social Research Consultants
      On 4/25/2013 12:15 PM, Richard Ristow [via SPSSX Discussion]
      wrote:
   
     At 09:43 AM 4/25/2013, David Marso wrote:
     
     
      >If the numbers are all positive then you can nuke the very
      small fudge factor
     
      >and remove the recode.
     
      >If you have negative values then you will need to modify the
      recode (I'm
     
      >sure you can sort that).
     
     
      >RECODE ALL (1.000001 THRU HI=SYSMIS).
     
     
      I think a cleaner way to do this RECODE, sidestepping having to
     
      choose a fudge factor, is
     
     
      RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 = COPY)
     
                   (ELSE        = SYSMIS).
     
     
      But actually, I think the dividing-by-zero problem is a strong
      reason
     
      to do the computation in a transformation program, rather than
      MATRIX.
     
     
      =====================
     
      To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
     
      [hidden email]
      (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
     
      command. To leave the list, send the command
     
      SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
     
      For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
     
      INFO REFCARD
     
     
     
     
     
        If you reply to this email, your
          message will be added to the discussion below:
        http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719720.html 
     
     
        To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email
        [hidden email] 
        To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click
          here .
        NAML

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719723.html

To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click here.
NAML

[David Marso]

Art,
  What is your concept of SYSMIS and do you think it should ever remain in a data file?
Isn't the very essence of system missing an entity that cannot be assigned a value by the 'system'?
I would consider division by zero as a candidate for treatment as SYSTEM MISSING rather than USER MISSING.

Interesting, you have been using SPSS 11 years longer than I have (1983).  

However, I did spend 11 years working at SPSS in the trenches (6 doing teksport,5 as a Full time Consultant)- Teksport was existence in the belly of the beast-answering all sorts of 'exotic questions' (Macro, INPUT PROGRAM, MATRIX etc -yeah, all the weirdness that nobody else wanted to touch with a 10 foot pole-  ).

In the early days of my taking on the 'exotic' I probably learned more from the users calling in than they learned from me.  My very first exposure to macro was someone trying to do:
!LET !arg2=!arg1 + 1.
Well, that had me baffled.  Well it is beyond obvious now, but believe it or not, once upon a time I was a rank newbie too.  
I didn't pop out of my mother with a full blown SPSS manual in my brain ;-)

There was even a special folder in the support database called "Marso Madness".  I wanted to call it "Doing Unnatural Acts with SPSS" but that got vetoed ;-).  

I LEARNED what I know today by being exposed to all the weird things 'weird' people try to do with SPSS for 6 years, 8 hours a day.  
 
I seriously doubt that support will even consider answering those sorts of questions any more.  Maybe I'll call them for the heck of it and screw with their minds with some easy but actual 'how do I do this' question. and see how long it takes them to refer me to the consulting department ;-)))

Art Kendall wrote

I admit it is a soapbox
        topic.  
     
      You surely are not a beginner and despite having used SPSS since
                            1972 I still learn from your posts. 
                            However, people who follow  the
                              list or search the archives are at least
                              to some degree learners.
                             
                            To aid debugging and for
                    quality assurance review I try to have people catch
                    all instances of sysmis, redraft the syntax,  and
                    provide for that condition in the transformations. 
                    Then assign a missing value that can
                    be labelled.
                      Redrafting would not be finished
                        until all sysmis
                            had been changed to to user missing with
                            value labels
                      for example in this instance I would put
                    value labels varlist -999
                              'missing to avoid
                                dividing by zero' .
                 
               
               
      Art Kendall
Social Research Consultants
      On 4/25/2013 1:47 PM, David Marso [via SPSSX Discussion] wrote:
   
     In principle I agree with the sysmis on right side
      for the most part.
     
      However in this case it is a direct correlate to the notion that
      the SYSTEM could NOT carry out some operation namely an attempted
      division by 0 (which would indeed end up as SYSMIS in normal
      calculations after spewing a host of warning messages.  Protecting
      the division with DO IF will render the same result.  So, my using
      SYSMIS in this case is deliberate and significant in reflecting
      the inability of the system to caary out the computation.
     
      --
      In MATRIX such an misadventure results in a fatal untrappable
      error and SPSS takes its ball and goes home (end of game), leading
      to unhappy emails and or phone calls.  
     
     
      My shameless hack attempts to capitalize on the cranked up
      energizer bunny properties of MATRIX vector efficiency while
      gracefully avoiding division by 0.  It is crucial to mop up
      afterwards internally to avoid ludicrous results but it is easier
      than protecting EVERY DIVISION in MATRIX with the following
      awkward monstrosity.
     
      DO IF (zero_check_matrix).
     
      COMPUTE newarray = oldarray / value.
     
      ELSE.
     
      COMPUTE newarray=MAKE(NROW(oldarray),NCOL(oldArray),0).
     
      LOOP #=1 TO NROW(oldarray).
     
      LOOP ##=1 TO NCOL(oldArray).
     
      COMPUTE newarray(#,##)=oldarray(#,##)/value.
     
      END LOOP.
     
      END LOOP.
     
      END IF.
     
      This also ends up being a PITA because one must take great care to
      treat the resulting 0 appropriately in subsequent calculations.
       In the HACK mode one can test for HUGE values which are
      distinguishable from 0's which can legitimately arise from 0
      numerators .
     
      Yeah, there are trade offs, and I am nowhere near solving every
      weird thing that can crop up in complex situations.
     
      But, I do stand by my using SYSMIS for this situation ;-)
     
      --
     
     
       
          Art
            Kendall wrote
          OOPS! sysmis on
            right side of
           
                  assignment operator.
                  RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 = COPY)
           
                 
                               (ELSE    -999    = ).
           
                 
                  missing values all (-999).
                  Art Kendall
           
            Social Research Consultants
                  On 4/25/2013 12:15 PM, Richard Ristow [via SPSSX
            Discussion]
           
                  wrote:
               
                 At 09:43 AM 4/25/2013, David Marso wrote:
           
                 
                 
                  >If the numbers are all positive then you can nuke
            the very
           
                  small fudge factor
           
                 
                  >and remove the recode.
           
                 
                  >If you have negative values then you will need to
            modify the
           
                  recode (I'm
           
                 
                  >sure you can sort that).
           
                 
                 
                  >RECODE ALL (1.000001 THRU HI=SYSMIS).
           
                 
                 
                  I think a cleaner way to do this RECODE, sidestepping
            having to
           
                 
                  choose a fudge factor, is
           
                 
                 
                  RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 = COPY)
           
                 
                               (ELSE        = SYSMIS).
           
                 
                 
                  But actually, I think the dividing-by-zero problem is
            a strong
           
                  reason
           
                 
                  to do the computation in a transformation program,
            rather than
           
                  MATRIX.
           
                 
                 
                  =====================
           
                 
                  To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message
            to
           
                 
                  [hidden email]
                  (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
           
                 
                  command. To leave the list, send the command
           
                 
                  SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
           
                 
                  For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send
            the command
           
                 
                  INFO REFCARD
           
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                    If you reply to this email, your
           
                      message will be added to the discussion below:
                    http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719720.html  
           
                 
                 
                    To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email
           
                    [hidden
              email]  
                    To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click
           
                      here .
                    NAML
         
       
     
       Please
        reply to the list and not to my personal email.
       
        Those desiring my consulting or training services please feel
        free to email me.
       
        ---
       
        "Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras
        ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis."
       
        Cum es damnatorum possederunt porcos iens ut salire off
        sanguinum cliff in abyssum?"
     
     
     
     
        If you reply to this email, your
          message will be added to the discussion below:
        http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719723.html 
     
     
        To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email
        [hidden email] 
        To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click
          here .
        NAML

[Art Kendall]

Much of my time has been spent on providing just-in-time help of stat methods, and SPSS.
I developed a lot of my soapboxes by seeing how people were shooting themselves in the foot.

My use of SYSMIS is this.
There is a value for a variable such as the system was unable to follow my instructions.
I use the occurrence of a SYSMIS value as a clue in going back to find out what was wrong with my instructions (syntax).
(Over the years I have come to believe that it is almost always the instructions that are to blame.).
I then go back and change the instruction so that they provide for the special cases that caused the original SYSMIS.
Hence, in this instance

value labels varlist -999     'missing to avoid   dividing by zero' .

in public policy issues and program evaluation it is very common to do what in auditing is called "referencing" .  This is a process where another person  goes over the whole data gathering, transformation, and analysis, to check that the statements made are consistent with what was done.  I would not want legislation or a court case to rely on  my statements unless I exercised due diligence.

In addition to redrafting the syntax to provide for the special cases, I also redraft syntax to include comments that explain why there are warnings.

These go along with my soapbox about readability.  Except for my first few years of using computers, by 1974 or so, I came to value human factors criteria, such as readability of syntax and listings, over machine efficiency. YMMV but I find it much more saving of my time in the long run to use syntax that explains what is going on.

BTW even when I am the only one who is going to see the syntax, emphasizing readability also helps me when I am inevitably interrupted during an analysis.  Even a short effort such as replying to a post on this list may be subject to phone calls, calls of nature, meals, etc.  Foe example, I had two phone calls from my  physicians while responding to this post.

I also have a soapbox about about carefully differentiating the different kinds of user missing values including things like 'missing to avoid   dividing by zero' .  I find this very useful in the reasoning that the statistics are in support of.   But that is another story.

On 4/26/2013 10:03 AM, David Marso [via SPSSX Discussion] wrote:

Art,
  What is your concept of SYSMIS and do you think it should ever remain in a data file?
Isn't the very essence of system missing an entity that cannot be assigned a value by the 'system'?
I would consider division by zero as a candidate for treatment as SYSTEM MISSING rather than USER MISSING.

Interesting, you have been using SPSS 11 years longer than I have (1983).  

However, I did spend 11 years working at SPSS in the trenches (6 doing teksport,5 as a Full time Consultant)- Teksport was existence in the belly of the beast-answering all sorts of 'exotic questions' (Macro, INPUT PROGRAM, MATRIX etc -yeah, all the weirdness that nobody else wanted to touch with a 10 foot pole-  ).

In the early days of my taking on the 'exotic' I probably learned more from the users calling in than they learned from me.  My very first exposure to macro was someone trying to do:
!LET !arg2=!arg1 + 1.
Well, that had me baffled.  Well it is beyond obvious now, but believe it or not, once upon a time I was a rank newbie too.  
I didn't pop out of my mother with a full blown SPSS manual in my brain ;-)

There was even a special folder in the support database called "Marso Madness".  I wanted to call it "Doing Unnatural Acts with SPSS" but that got vetoed ;-).  

I LEARNED what I know today by being exposed to all the weird things 'weird' people try to do with SPSS for 6 years, 8 hours a day.  
 
I seriously doubt that support will even consider answering those sorts of questions any more.  Maybe I'll call them for the heck of it and screw with their minds with some easy but actual 'how do I do this' question. and see how long it takes them to refer me to the consulting department ;-)))

Art Kendall wrote

I admit it is a soapbox
        topic.  
     
      You surely are not a beginner and despite having used SPSS since
                            1972 I still learn from your posts. 
                            However, people who follow  the
                              list or search the archives are at least
                              to some degree learners.
                             
                            To aid debugging and for
                    quality assurance review I try to have people catch
                    all instances of sysmis, redraft the syntax,  and
                    provide for that condition in the transformations. 
                    Then assign a missing value that can
                    be labelled.
                      Redrafting would not be finished
                        until all sysmis
                            had been changed to to user missing with
                            value labels
                      for example in this instance I would put
                    value labels varlist -999
                              'missing to avoid
                                dividing by zero' .
                 
               
               
      Art Kendall
Social Research Consultants
      On 4/25/2013 1:47 PM, David Marso [via SPSSX Discussion] wrote:
   
     In principle I agree with the sysmis on right side
      for the most part.
     
      However in this case it is a direct correlate to the notion that
      the SYSTEM could NOT carry out some operation namely an attempted
      division by 0 (which would indeed end up as SYSMIS in normal
      calculations after spewing a host of warning messages.  Protecting
      the division with DO IF will render the same result.  So, my using
      SYSMIS in this case is deliberate and significant in reflecting
      the inability of the system to caary out the computation.
     
      --
      In MATRIX such an misadventure results in a fatal untrappable
      error and SPSS takes its ball and goes home (end of game), leading
      to unhappy emails and or phone calls.  
     
     
      My shameless hack attempts to capitalize on the cranked up
      energizer bunny properties of MATRIX vector efficiency while
      gracefully avoiding division by 0.  It is crucial to mop up
      afterwards internally to avoid ludicrous results but it is easier
      than protecting EVERY DIVISION in MATRIX with the following
      awkward monstrosity.
     
      DO IF (zero_check_matrix).
     
      COMPUTE newarray = oldarray / value.
     
      ELSE.
     
      COMPUTE newarray=MAKE(NROW(oldarray),NCOL(oldArray),0).
     
      LOOP #=1 TO NROW(oldarray).
     
      LOOP ##=1 TO NCOL(oldArray).
     
      COMPUTE newarray(#,##)=oldarray(#,##)/value.
     
      END LOOP.
     
      END LOOP.
     
      END IF.
     
      This also ends up being a PITA because one must take great care to
      treat the resulting 0 appropriately in subsequent calculations.
       In the HACK mode one can test for HUGE values which are
      distinguishable from 0's which can legitimately arise from 0
      numerators .
     
      Yeah, there are trade offs, and I am nowhere near solving every
      weird thing that can crop up in complex situations.
     
      But, I do stand by my using SYSMIS for this situation ;-)
     
      --
     
     
       
          Art
            Kendall wrote
          OOPS! sysmis on
            right side of
           
                  assignment operator.
                  RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 = COPY)
           
                 
                               (ELSE    -999    = ).
           
                 
                  missing values all (-999).
                  Art Kendall
           
            Social Research Consultants
                  On 4/25/2013 12:15 PM, Richard Ristow [via SPSSX
            Discussion]
           
                  wrote:
               
                 At 09:43 AM 4/25/2013, David Marso wrote:
           
                 
                 
                  >If the numbers are all positive then you can nuke
            the very
           
                  small fudge factor
           
                 
                  >and remove the recode.
           
                 
                  >If you have negative values then you will need to
            modify the
           
                  recode (I'm
           
                 
                  >sure you can sort that).
           
                 
                 
                  >RECODE ALL (1.000001 THRU HI=SYSMIS).
           
                 
                 
                  I think a cleaner way to do this RECODE, sidestepping
            having to
           
                 
                  choose a fudge factor, is
           
                 
                 
                  RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 = COPY)
           
                 
                               (ELSE        = SYSMIS).
           
                 
                 
                  But actually, I think the dividing-by-zero problem is
            a strong
           
                  reason
           
                 
                  to do the computation in a transformation program,
            rather than
           
                  MATRIX.
           
                 
                 
                  =====================
           
                 
                  To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message
            to
           
                 
                  [hidden email]
                  (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
           
                 
                  command. To leave the list, send the command
           
                 
                  SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
           
                 
                  For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send
            the command
           
                 
                  INFO REFCARD
           
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                    If you reply to this email, your
           
                      message will be added to the discussion below:
                    http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719720.html  
           
                 
                 
                    To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email
           
                    [hidden
              email]  
                    To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click
           
                      here .
                    NAML
         
       
     
       Please
        reply to the list and not to my personal email.
       
        Those desiring my consulting or training services please feel
        free to email me.
       
        ---
       
        "Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras
        ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis."
       
        Cum es damnatorum possederunt porcos iens ut salire off
        sanguinum cliff in abyssum?"
     
     
     
     
        If you reply to this email, your
          message will be added to the discussion below:
        http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719723.html 
     
     
        To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email
        [hidden email] 
        To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click
          here .
        NAML

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719750.html

To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click here.
NAML

[Richard Ristow]

At 12:32 PM 4/25/2013, David Marso wrote:

>I suppose my MATRIX hack is a little unorthodox but by choosing an
>INFINITESIMAL term to add to the vector I don't need to explicitly
>check and it comes back into SPSS with a fudge factor which can not
>be detected in the precision available to the main system.
>Now, I have no idea how MATRIX can represent such very small values
>and avoid the zero divide infinity.

I've seen nothing explicit, but I assume MATRIX uses the same number
representation as the main system: 64-bit binary floating, per IEEE
standard 754; with 53-bit precision.

=====================
To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
[hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
command. To leave the list, send the command
SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
INFO REFCARD

[David Marso]

I guess I would revise the value label and make it even more explicit and diagnostic.

Again, The system could not carry out the projected game plan -> SYSMIS .
But, upon further reflection, I guess the User Missing has an upside since
1. You can't assign a VALUE LABEL to sysmis ;-(
2. The variable could be system missing for reasons other than a zero divide attempt.

I think I shall do some code revision ;-)

VALUE LABELS varlist
  -999  'Trapped math error: Attempted Division by 0 : Inspect (varlist) involved in denominator'
  -888  'Unable to evaluate formula:  Missing numerator :Inspect (varlist) involved in numerator '.
  -777  'Some other things got screwed up'.

Good Catch Art.

--

Art Kendall wrote

Much of my time has
        been spent on providing just-in-time help of stat methods, and
        SPSS.
        I developed a lot of my soapboxes by seeing how
          people were shooting themselves in the foot.
       
        My use of SYSMIS is this.
      There is a value for a variable such as the system was unable to
      follow my instructions.
      I use the occurrence of a SYSMIS value as a clue in going back to
      find out what was wrong with my instructions (syntax).
      (Over the years I have come to believe that it is almost always
      the instructions that are to blame.).
      I then go back and change the instruction so that they provide for
      the special cases that caused the original SYSMIS.
      Hence, in this instance
      value labels varlist -999     'missing to
        avoid   dividing by zero' .
     
      in public policy issues and program evaluation it is very common
      to do what in auditing is called "referencing" .  This is a
      process where another person  goes over the whole data gathering,
      transformation, and analysis, to check that the statements made
      are consistent with what was done.  I would not want legislation
      or a court case to rely on  my statements unless I exercised due
      diligence.
     
      In addition to redrafting the syntax to provide for the special
      cases, I also redraft syntax to include comments that explain why
      there are warnings.
     
      These go along with my soapbox about readability.  Except for my
      first few years of using computers, by 1974 or so, I came to value
      human factors criteria, such as readability of syntax and
      listings, over machine efficiency. YMMV but I find it much more
      saving of my time in the long run to use syntax that explains what
      is going on.
     
      BTW even when I am the only one who is going to see the syntax,
      emphasizing readability also helps me when I am inevitably
      interrupted during an analysis.  Even a short effort such as
      replying to a post on this list may be subject to phone calls,
      calls of nature, meals, etc.  Foe example, I had two phone calls
      from my  physicians while responding to this post.
     
      I also have a soapbox about about carefully differentiating the
      different kinds of user missing values including things like
      'missing to avoid   dividing by zero' .  I find this very useful
      in the reasoning that the statistics are in support of.   But that
      is another story.
     
      Art Kendall
Social Research Consultants
      On 4/26/2013 10:03 AM, David Marso [via SPSSX Discussion] wrote:
   
     Art,
     
        What is your concept of SYSMIS and do you think it should ever
      remain in a data file?
     
      Isn't the very essence of system missing an entity that cannot be
      assigned a value by the 'system'?
     
      I would consider division by zero as a candidate for treatment as
      SYSTEM MISSING rather than USER MISSING.
     
     
      Interesting, you have been using SPSS 11 years longer than I have
      (1983).  
     
     
      However, I did spend 11 years working at SPSS in the trenches (6
      doing teksport,5 as a Full time Consultant)- Teksport was
      existence in the belly of the beast-answering all sorts of 'exotic
      questions' (Macro, INPUT PROGRAM, MATRIX etc -yeah, all the
      weirdness that nobody else wanted to touch with a 10 foot pole-
       ).
     
     
      In the early days of my taking on the 'exotic' I probably learned
      more from the users calling in than they learned from me.  My very
      first exposure to macro was someone trying to do:
     
      !LET !arg2=!arg1 + 1.
     
      Well, that had me baffled.  Well it is beyond obvious now, but
      believe it or not, once upon a time I was a rank newbie too.  
     
      I didn't pop out of my mother with a full blown SPSS manual in my
      brain ;-)
     
     
      There was even a special folder in the support database called
      "Marso Madness".  I wanted to call it "Doing Unnatural Acts with
      SPSS" but that got vetoed ;-).  
     
     
      I LEARNED what I know today by being exposed to all the weird
      things 'weird' people try to do with SPSS for 6 years, 8 hours a
      day.  
     
       
      I seriously doubt that support will even consider answering those
      sorts of questions any more.  Maybe I'll call them for the heck of
      it and screw with their minds with some easy but actual 'how do I
      do this' question. and see how long it takes them to refer me to
      the consulting department ;-)))
     
     
     
       
          Art
            Kendall wrote
          I admit it is a
            soapbox
           
                    topic.  
                 
                  You surely are not a beginner and despite having used
            SPSS since
           
                                        1972 I still learn from your
            posts. 
           
                                        However, people who follow  the
           
                                          list or search the archives
            are at least
           
                                          to some degree learners.
                                         
                                        To aid debugging and for
           
                                quality assurance review I try to have
            people catch
           
                                all instances of sysmis, redraft the
            syntax,  and
           
                                provide for that condition in the
            transformations. 
           
                                Then assign a missing value that can
           
                                be labelled.
                                  Redrafting would not be finished
           
                                    until all sysmis
           
                                        had been changed to to user
            missing with
           
                                        value labels
                                  for example in this instance I would
            put
                                value labels varlist -999
           
                                          'missing to avoid
           
                                            dividing by zero' .
                             
                           
                           
                  Art Kendall
           
            Social Research Consultants
                  On 4/25/2013 1:47 PM, David Marso [via SPSSX
            Discussion] wrote:
               
                 In principle I agree with the sysmis on right side
           
                  for the most part.
           
                 
                  However in this case it is a direct correlate to the
            notion that
           
                  the SYSTEM could NOT carry out some operation namely
            an attempted
           
                  division by 0 (which would indeed end up as SYSMIS in
            normal
           
                  calculations after spewing a host of warning messages.
             Protecting
           
                  the division with DO IF will render the same result.
             So, my using
           
                  SYSMIS in this case is deliberate and significant in
            reflecting
           
                  the inability of the system to caary out the
            computation.
           
                 
                  --
                  In MATRIX such an misadventure results in a fatal
            untrappable
           
                  error and SPSS takes its ball and goes home (end of
            game), leading
           
                  to unhappy emails and or phone calls.  
           
                 
                 
                  My shameless hack attempts to capitalize on the
            cranked up
           
                  energizer bunny properties of MATRIX vector efficiency
            while
           
                  gracefully avoiding division by 0.  It is crucial to
            mop up
           
                  afterwards internally to avoid ludicrous results but
            it is easier
           
                  than protecting EVERY DIVISION in MATRIX with the
            following
           
                  awkward monstrosity.
                 
                  DO IF (zero_check_matrix).
           
                 
                  COMPUTE newarray = oldarray / value.
           
                 
                  ELSE.
           
                 
                  COMPUTE
            newarray=MAKE(NROW(oldarray),NCOL(oldArray),0).
           
                 
                  LOOP #=1 TO NROW(oldarray).
           
                 
                  LOOP ##=1 TO NCOL(oldArray).
           
                 
                  COMPUTE newarray(#,##)=oldarray(#,##)/value.
           
                 
                  END LOOP.
           
                 
                  END LOOP.
           
                 
                  END IF.
                 
                  This also ends up being a PITA because one must take
            great care to
           
                  treat the resulting 0 appropriately in subsequent
            calculations.
           
                   In the HACK mode one can test for HUGE values which
            are
           
                  distinguishable from 0's which can legitimately arise
            from 0
           
                  numerators .
           
                 
                  Yeah, there are trade offs, and I am nowhere near
            solving every
           
                  weird thing that can crop up in complex situations.
           
                 
                  But, I do stand by my using SYSMIS for this situation
            ;-)
           
                 
                  --
           
                 
                 
                   
                      Art
           
                        Kendall wrote
                      OOPS! sysmis on
           
                        right side of
           
                       
                              assignment operator.
                              RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 = COPY)
           
                       
                             
                                           (ELSE    -999    = ).
           
                       
                             
                              missing values all (-999).
                              Art Kendall
           
                       
                        Social Research Consultants
                              On 4/25/2013 12:15 PM, Richard Ristow [via
            SPSSX
           
                        Discussion]
           
                       
                              wrote:
                           
                             At 09:43 AM 4/25/2013, David Marso wrote:
           
                       
                             
                             
                              >If the numbers are all positive then
            you can nuke
           
                        the very
           
                       
                              small fudge factor
           
                       
                             
                              >and remove the recode.
           
                       
                             
                              >If you have negative values then you
            will need to
           
                        modify the
           
                       
                              recode (I'm
           
                       
                             
                              >sure you can sort that).
           
                       
                             
                             
                              >RECODE ALL (1.000001 THRU HI=SYSMIS).
           
                       
                             
                             
                              I think a cleaner way to do this RECODE,
            sidestepping
           
                        having to
           
                       
                             
                              choose a fudge factor, is
           
                       
                             
                             
                              RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 = COPY)
           
                       
                             
                                           (ELSE        = SYSMIS).
           
                       
                             
                             
                              But actually, I think the dividing-by-zero
            problem is
           
                        a strong
           
                       
                              reason
           
                       
                             
                              to do the computation in a transformation
            program,
           
                        rather than
           
                       
                              MATRIX.
           
                       
                             
                             
                              =====================
           
                       
                             
                              To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L,
            send a message
           
                        to
           
                       
                             
                              [hidden email]
                              (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except
            the
           
                       
                             
                              command. To leave the list, send the
            command
           
                       
                             
                              SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
           
                       
                             
                              For a list of commands to manage
            subscriptions, send
           
                        the command
           
                       
                             
                              INFO REFCARD
           
                       
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                                If you reply to this email, your
           
                       
                                  message will be added to the
            discussion below:
                                http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719720.html   
           
                       
                             
                             
                                To start a new topic under SPSSX
            Discussion, email
           
                       
                                [hidden
           
                          email]  
                                To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion,
            click
           
                       
                                  here .
                                NAML
           
                     
                   
                 
                   Please
           
                    reply to the list and not to my personal email.
           
                   
                    Those desiring my consulting or training services
            please feel
           
                    free to email me.
           
                   
                    ---
           
                   
                    "Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis
            margaritas vestras
           
                    ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis."
           
                   
                    Cum es damnatorum possederunt porcos iens ut salire
            off
           
                    sanguinum cliff in abyssum?"
                 
                 
                 
                 
                    If you reply to this email, your
           
                      message will be added to the discussion below:
                    http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719723.html  
           
                 
                 
                    To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email
           
                    [hidden
              email]  
                    To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click
           
                      here .
                    NAML
         
       
     
       Please
        reply to the list and not to my personal email.
       
        Those desiring my consulting or training services please feel
        free to email me.
       
        ---
       
        "Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras
        ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis."
       
        Cum es damnatorum possederunt porcos iens ut salire off
        sanguinum cliff in abyssum?"
     
     
     
     
        If you reply to this email, your
          message will be added to the discussion below:
        http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719750.html 
     
     
        To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email
        [hidden email] 
        To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click
          here .
        NAML

[Jon K Peck]

True.  Which gives you 10**+/-308 or so as the range of floating point numbers.


Jon Peck (no "h") aka Kim
Senior Software Engineer, IBM
[hidden email]
phone: [phone]




From:        Richard Ristow <[hidden email]>
To:        [hidden email],
Date:        04/26/2013 11:38 AM
Subject:        Re: [SPSSX-L] do repeat
Sent by:        "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <[hidden email]>

---

At 12:32 PM 4/25/2013, David Marso wrote:

>I suppose my MATRIX hack is a little unorthodox but by choosing an
>INFINITESIMAL term to add to the vector I don't need to explicitly
>check and it comes back into SPSS with a fudge factor which can not
>be detected in the precision available to the main system.
>Now, I have no idea how MATRIX can represent such very small values
>and avoid the zero divide infinity.

I've seen nothing explicit, but I assume MATRIX uses the same number
representation as the main system: 64-bit binary floating, per IEEE
standard 754; with 53-bit precision.

=====================
To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
[hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
command. To leave the list, send the command
SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
INFO REFCARD

[Art Kendall]

Great!

-777 is very much like how I end DO IF blocks
else.
Print / 'OOPS should not have arrived here'.
compute result = -777
end if.

remember just because I am paranoid does not mean the computer is not trying to mess me up.
On 4/26/2013 1:54 PM, David Marso [via SPSSX Discussion] wrote:

I guess I would revise the value label and make it even more explicit and diagnostic.

Again, The system could not carry out the projected game plan -> SYSMIS .
But, upon further reflection, I guess the User Missing has an upside since
1. You can't assign a VALUE LABEL to sysmis ;-(
2. The variable could be system missing for reasons other than a zero divide attempt.

I think I shall do some code revision ;-)

VALUE LABELS varlist
  -999  'Trapped math error: Attempted Division by 0 : Inspect (varlist) involved in denominator'
  -888  'Unable to evaluate formula:  Missing numerator :Inspect (varlist) involved in numerator '.
  -777  'Some other things got screwed up'.

Good Catch Art.

--

Art Kendall wrote

Much of my time has
        been spent on providing just-in-time help of stat methods, and
        SPSS.
        I developed a lot of my soapboxes by seeing how
          people were shooting themselves in the foot.
       
        My use of SYSMIS is this.
      There is a value for a variable such as the system was unable to
      follow my instructions.
      I use the occurrence of a SYSMIS value as a clue in going back to
      find out what was wrong with my instructions (syntax).
      (Over the years I have come to believe that it is almost always
      the instructions that are to blame.).
      I then go back and change the instruction so that they provide for
      the special cases that caused the original SYSMIS.
      Hence, in this instance
      value labels varlist -999     'missing to
        avoid   dividing by zero' .
     
      in public policy issues and program evaluation it is very common
      to do what in auditing is called "referencing" .  This is a
      process where another person  goes over the whole data gathering,
      transformation, and analysis, to check that the statements made
      are consistent with what was done.  I would not want legislation
      or a court case to rely on  my statements unless I exercised due
      diligence.
     
      In addition to redrafting the syntax to provide for the special
      cases, I also redraft syntax to include comments that explain why
      there are warnings.
     
      These go along with my soapbox about readability.  Except for my
      first few years of using computers, by 1974 or so, I came to value
      human factors criteria, such as readability of syntax and
      listings, over machine efficiency. YMMV but I find it much more
      saving of my time in the long run to use syntax that explains what
      is going on.
     
      BTW even when I am the only one who is going to see the syntax,
      emphasizing readability also helps me when I am inevitably
      interrupted during an analysis.  Even a short effort such as
      replying to a post on this list may be subject to phone calls,
      calls of nature, meals, etc.  Foe example, I had two phone calls
      from my  physicians while responding to this post.
     
      I also have a soapbox about about carefully differentiating the
      different kinds of user missing values including things like
      'missing to avoid   dividing by zero' .  I find this very useful
      in the reasoning that the statistics are in support of.   But that
      is another story.
     
      Art Kendall
Social Research Consultants
      On 4/26/2013 10:03 AM, David Marso [via SPSSX Discussion] wrote:
   
     Art,
     
        What is your concept of SYSMIS and do you think it should ever
      remain in a data file?
     
      Isn't the very essence of system missing an entity that cannot be
      assigned a value by the 'system'?
     
      I would consider division by zero as a candidate for treatment as
      SYSTEM MISSING rather than USER MISSING.
     
     
      Interesting, you have been using SPSS 11 years longer than I have
      (1983).  
     
     
      However, I did spend 11 years working at SPSS in the trenches (6
      doing teksport,5 as a Full time Consultant)- Teksport was
      existence in the belly of the beast-answering all sorts of 'exotic
      questions' (Macro, INPUT PROGRAM, MATRIX etc -yeah, all the
      weirdness that nobody else wanted to touch with a 10 foot pole-
       ).
     
     
      In the early days of my taking on the 'exotic' I probably learned
      more from the users calling in than they learned from me.  My very
      first exposure to macro was someone trying to do:
     
      !LET !arg2=!arg1 + 1.
     
      Well, that had me baffled.  Well it is beyond obvious now, but
      believe it or not, once upon a time I was a rank newbie too.  
     
      I didn't pop out of my mother with a full blown SPSS manual in my
      brain ;-)
     
     
      There was even a special folder in the support database called
      "Marso Madness".  I wanted to call it "Doing Unnatural Acts with
      SPSS" but that got vetoed ;-).  
     
     
      I LEARNED what I know today by being exposed to all the weird
      things 'weird' people try to do with SPSS for 6 years, 8 hours a
      day.  
     
       
      I seriously doubt that support will even consider answering those
      sorts of questions any more.  Maybe I'll call them for the heck of
      it and screw with their minds with some easy but actual 'how do I
      do this' question. and see how long it takes them to refer me to
      the consulting department ;-)))
     
     
     
       
          Art
            Kendall wrote
          I admit it is a
            soapbox
           
                    topic.  
                 
                  You surely are not a beginner and despite having used
            SPSS since
           
                                        1972 I still learn from your
            posts. 
           
                                        However, people who follow  the
           
                                          list or search the archives
            are at least
           
                                          to some degree learners.
                                         
                                        To aid debugging and for
           
                                quality assurance review I try to have
            people catch
           
                                all instances of sysmis, redraft the
            syntax,  and
           
                                provide for that condition in the
            transformations. 
           
                                Then assign a missing value that can
           
                                be labelled.
                                  Redrafting would not be finished
           
                                    until all sysmis
           
                                        had been changed to to user
            missing with
           
                                        value labels
                                  for example in this instance I would
            put
                                value labels varlist -999
           
                                          'missing to avoid
           
                                            dividing by zero' .
                             
                           
                           
                  Art Kendall
           
            Social Research Consultants
                  On 4/25/2013 1:47 PM, David Marso [via SPSSX
            Discussion] wrote:
               
                 In principle I agree with the sysmis on right side
           
                  for the most part.
           
                 
                  However in this case it is a direct correlate to the
            notion that
           
                  the SYSTEM could NOT carry out some operation namely
            an attempted
           
                  division by 0 (which would indeed end up as SYSMIS in
            normal
           
                  calculations after spewing a host of warning messages.
             Protecting
           
                  the division with DO IF will render the same result.
             So, my using
           
                  SYSMIS in this case is deliberate and significant in
            reflecting
           
                  the inability of the system to caary out the
            computation.
           
                 
                  --
                  In MATRIX such an misadventure results in a fatal
            untrappable
           
                  error and SPSS takes its ball and goes home (end of
            game), leading
           
                  to unhappy emails and or phone calls.  
           
                 
                 
                  My shameless hack attempts to capitalize on the
            cranked up
           
                  energizer bunny properties of MATRIX vector efficiency
            while
           
                  gracefully avoiding division by 0.  It is crucial to
            mop up
           
                  afterwards internally to avoid ludicrous results but
            it is easier
           
                  than protecting EVERY DIVISION in MATRIX with the
            following
           
                  awkward monstrosity.
                 
                  DO IF (zero_check_matrix).
           
                 
                  COMPUTE newarray = oldarray / value.
           
                 
                  ELSE.
           
                 
                  COMPUTE
            newarray=MAKE(NROW(oldarray),NCOL(oldArray),0).
           
                 
                  LOOP #=1 TO NROW(oldarray).
           
                 
                  LOOP ##=1 TO NCOL(oldArray).
           
                 
                  COMPUTE newarray(#,##)=oldarray(#,##)/value.
           
                 
                  END LOOP.
           
                 
                  END LOOP.
           
                 
                  END IF.
                 
                  This also ends up being a PITA because one must take
            great care to
           
                  treat the resulting 0 appropriately in subsequent
            calculations.
           
                   In the HACK mode one can test for HUGE values which
            are
           
                  distinguishable from 0's which can legitimately arise
            from 0
           
                  numerators .
           
                 
                  Yeah, there are trade offs, and I am nowhere near
            solving every
           
                  weird thing that can crop up in complex situations.
           
                 
                  But, I do stand by my using SYSMIS for this situation
            ;-)
           
                 
                  --
           
                 
                 
                   
                      Art
           
                        Kendall wrote
                      OOPS! sysmis on
           
                        right side of
           
                       
                              assignment operator.
                              RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 = COPY)
           
                       
                             
                                           (ELSE    -999    = ).
           
                       
                             
                              missing values all (-999).
                              Art Kendall
           
                       
                        Social Research Consultants
                              On 4/25/2013 12:15 PM, Richard Ristow [via
            SPSSX
           
                        Discussion]
           
                       
                              wrote:
                           
                             At 09:43 AM 4/25/2013, David Marso wrote:
           
                       
                             
                             
                              >If the numbers are all positive then
            you can nuke
           
                        the very
           
                       
                              small fudge factor
           
                       
                             
                              >and remove the recode.
           
                       
                             
                              >If you have negative values then you
            will need to
           
                        modify the
           
                       
                              recode (I'm
           
                       
                             
                              >sure you can sort that).
           
                       
                             
                             
                              >RECODE ALL (1.000001 THRU HI=SYSMIS).
           
                       
                             
                             
                              I think a cleaner way to do this RECODE,
            sidestepping
           
                        having to
           
                       
                             
                              choose a fudge factor, is
           
                       
                             
                             
                              RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 = COPY)
           
                       
                             
                                           (ELSE        = SYSMIS).
           
                       
                             
                             
                              But actually, I think the dividing-by-zero
            problem is
           
                        a strong
           
                       
                              reason
           
                       
                             
                              to do the computation in a transformation
            program,
           
                        rather than
           
                       
                              MATRIX.
           
                       
                             
                             
                              =====================
           
                       
                             
                              To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L,
            send a message
           
                        to
           
                       
                             
                              [hidden email]
                              (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except
            the
           
                       
                             
                              command. To leave the list, send the
            command
           
                       
                             
                              SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
           
                       
                             
                              For a list of commands to manage
            subscriptions, send
           
                        the command
           
                       
                             
                              INFO REFCARD
           
                       
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                                If you reply to this email, your
           
                       
                                  message will be added to the
            discussion below:
                                http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719720.html   
           
                       
                             
                             
                                To start a new topic under SPSSX
            Discussion, email
           
                       
                                [hidden
           
                          email]  
                                To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion,
            click
           
                       
                                  here .
                                NAML
           
                     
                   
                 
                   Please
           
                    reply to the list and not to my personal email.
           
                   
                    Those desiring my consulting or training services
            please feel
           
                    free to email me.
           
                   
                    ---
           
                   
                    "Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis
            margaritas vestras
           
                    ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis."
           
                   
                    Cum es damnatorum possederunt porcos iens ut salire
            off
           
                    sanguinum cliff in abyssum?"
                 
                 
                 
                 
                    If you reply to this email, your
           
                      message will be added to the discussion below:
                    http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719723.html  
           
                 
                 
                    To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email
           
                    [hidden
              email]  
                    To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click
           
                      here .
                    NAML
         
       
     
       Please
        reply to the list and not to my personal email.
       
        Those desiring my consulting or training services please feel
        free to email me.
       
        ---
       
        "Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras
        ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis."
       
        Cum es damnatorum possederunt porcos iens ut salire off
        sanguinum cliff in abyssum?"
     
     
     
     
        If you reply to this email, your
          message will be added to the discussion below:
        http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719750.html 
     
     
        To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email
        [hidden email] 
        To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click
          here .
        NAML

---

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719763.html

To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click here.
NAML

[David Marso]

Well, I guess it's difficult to account for every possibility.
I would probably use -666 rather than -777 or can we think of something worse.
-666 'SPSS has conjured an imaginary number: We have exited the Euclidean plane'

Re Paranoia and computers.
I had been diligently working on my code for over 2 hrs yesterday (without saving -yeah, big mistake-).
Had my fingers poised over the Ctrl and the S key when all of a sudden Windows just went blue screen on me.  TOTAL system crash!  Lost some very focused difficult documentation and error handling work.
I'll bet the neighbors next door (if they were home) were wondering WTF?   Didn't know we have a sailor living next door.
(CIT):Computer Induced Tourette's?  
I'm looking for the cure (good thing for everyone I don't work in a cube farm).

Art Kendall wrote

Great!
         
        -777 is very much like
            how I end DO IF blocks
              else.
                  Print / 'OOPS should not have
                      arrived here'.
                    compute result = -777
                      end if.
                     
                      remember just because I am paranoid does not mean the
                        computer is not trying to mess me up.
                   
      Art Kendall
Social Research Consultants
      On 4/26/2013 1:54 PM, David Marso [via SPSSX Discussion] wrote:
   
     I guess I would revise the value label and make it
      even more explicit and diagnostic.
     
     
      Again, The system could not carry out the projected game plan
      -> SYSMIS .
     
      But, upon further reflection, I guess the User Missing has an
      upside since
      1. You can't assign a VALUE LABEL to sysmis ;-(
     
      2. The variable could be system missing for reasons other than a
      zero divide attempt.
     
     
      I think I shall do some code revision ;-)
     
     
      VALUE LABELS varlist
        -999  'Trapped math error: Attempted Division by 0 : Inspect
      (varlist) involved in denominator'
     
        -888  'Unable to evaluate formula:  Missing numerator :Inspect
      (varlist) involved in numerator '.
     
        -777  'Some other things got screwed up'.
     
      Good Catch Art.
     
     
      --
     
     
       
          Art
            Kendall wrote
          Much of my time
            has
           
                    been spent on providing just-in-time help of stat
            methods, and
           
                    SPSS.
                    I developed a lot of my soapboxes by seeing how
           
                      people were shooting themselves in the foot.
                   
                    My use of SYSMIS is this.
                  There is a value for a variable such as the system was
            unable to
           
                  follow my instructions.
                  I use the occurrence of a SYSMIS value as a clue in
            going back to
           
                  find out what was wrong with my instructions (syntax).
           
                  (Over the years I have come to believe that it is
            almost always
           
                  the instructions that are to blame.).
                  I then go back and change the instruction so that they
            provide for
           
                  the special cases that caused the original SYSMIS.
                  Hence, in this instance
                  value labels varlist -999     'missing to
           
                    avoid   dividing by zero' .
                 
                  in public policy issues and program evaluation it is
            very common
           
                  to do what in auditing is called "referencing" .  This
            is a
           
                  process where another person  goes over the whole data
            gathering,
           
                  transformation, and analysis, to check that the
            statements made
           
                  are consistent with what was done.  I would not want
            legislation
           
                  or a court case to rely on  my statements unless I
            exercised due
           
                  diligence.
                 
                  In addition to redrafting the syntax to provide for
            the special
           
                  cases, I also redraft syntax to include comments that
            explain why
           
                  there are warnings.
                 
                  These go along with my soapbox about readability. 
            Except for my
           
                  first few years of using computers, by 1974 or so, I
            came to value
           
                  human factors criteria, such as readability of syntax
            and
           
                  listings, over machine efficiency. YMMV but I find it
            much more
           
                  saving of my time in the long run to use syntax that
            explains what
           
                  is going on.
                 
                  BTW even when I am the only one who is going to see
            the syntax,
           
                  emphasizing readability also helps me when I am
            inevitably
           
                  interrupted during an analysis.  Even a short effort
            such as
           
                  replying to a post on this list may be subject to
            phone calls,
           
                  calls of nature, meals, etc.  Foe example, I had two
            phone calls
           
                  from my  physicians while responding to this post.
                 
                  I also have a soapbox about about carefully
            differentiating the
           
                  different kinds of user missing values including
            things like
           
                  'missing to avoid   dividing by zero' .  I find this
            very useful
           
                  in the reasoning that the statistics are in support
            of.   But that
           
                  is another story.
                 
                  Art Kendall
           
            Social Research Consultants
                  On 4/26/2013 10:03 AM, David Marso [via SPSSX
            Discussion] wrote:
               
                 Art,
           
                 
                    What is your concept of SYSMIS and do you think it
            should ever
           
                  remain in a data file?
           
                 
                  Isn't the very essence of system missing an entity
            that cannot be
           
                  assigned a value by the 'system'?
           
                 
                  I would consider division by zero as a candidate for
            treatment as
           
                  SYSTEM MISSING rather than USER MISSING.
           
                 
                 
                  Interesting, you have been using SPSS 11 years longer
            than I have
           
                  (1983).  
           
                 
                 
                  However, I did spend 11 years working at SPSS in the
            trenches (6
           
                  doing teksport,5 as a Full time Consultant)- Teksport
            was
           
                  existence in the belly of the beast-answering all
            sorts of 'exotic
           
                  questions' (Macro, INPUT PROGRAM, MATRIX etc -yeah,
            all the
           
                  weirdness that nobody else wanted to touch with a 10
            foot pole-
           
                   ).
           
                 
                 
                  In the early days of my taking on the 'exotic' I
            probably learned
           
                  more from the users calling in than they learned from
            me.  My very
           
                  first exposure to macro was someone trying to do:
           
                 
                  !LET !arg2=!arg1 + 1.
           
                 
                  Well, that had me baffled.  Well it is beyond obvious
            now, but
           
                  believe it or not, once upon a time I was a rank
            newbie too.  
           
                 
                  I didn't pop out of my mother with a full blown SPSS
            manual in my
           
                  brain ;-)
           
                 
                 
                  There was even a special folder in the support
            database called
           
                  "Marso Madness".  I wanted to call it "Doing Unnatural
            Acts with
           
                  SPSS" but that got vetoed ;-).  
           
                 
                 
                  I LEARNED what I know today by being exposed to all
            the weird
           
                  things 'weird' people try to do with SPSS for 6 years,
            8 hours a
           
                  day.  
           
                 
                   
                  I seriously doubt that support will even consider
            answering those
           
                  sorts of questions any more.  Maybe I'll call them for
            the heck of
           
                  it and screw with their minds with some easy but
            actual 'how do I
           
                  do this' question. and see how long it takes them to
            refer me to
           
                  the consulting department ;-)))
           
                 
                 
                 
                   
                      Art
           
                        Kendall wrote
                      I admit it is a
           
                        soapbox
           
                       
                                topic.  
                             
                              You surely are not a beginner and despite
            having used
           
                        SPSS since
           
                       
                                                    1972 I still learn
            from your
           
                        posts. 
           
                       
                                                    However, people who
            follow  the
           
                       
                                                      list or search the
            archives
           
                        are at least
           
                       
                                                      to some degree
            learners.
                                                     
                                                    To aid debugging and
            for
           
                       
                                            quality assurance review I
            try to have
           
                        people catch
           
                       
                                            all instances of sysmis,
            redraft the
           
                        syntax,  and
           
                       
                                            provide for that condition
            in the
           
                        transformations. 
           
                       
                                            Then assign a missing value
            that can
           
                       
                                            be labelled.
                                              Redrafting would not be
            finished
           
                       
                                                until all sysmis
           
                       
                                                    had been changed to
            to user
           
                        missing with
           
                       
                                                    value labels
                                              for example in this
            instance I would
           
                        put
                                            value labels varlist -999
           
                       
                                                      'missing to avoid
           
                       
                                                        dividing by
            zero' .
                                         
                                       
                                       
                              Art Kendall
           
                       
                        Social Research Consultants
                              On 4/25/2013 1:47 PM, David Marso [via
            SPSSX
           
                        Discussion] wrote:
                           
                             In principle I agree with the sysmis on
            right side
           
                       
                              for the most part.
           
                       
                             
                              However in this case it is a direct
            correlate to the
           
                        notion that
           
                       
                              the SYSTEM could NOT carry out some
            operation namely
           
                        an attempted
           
                       
                              division by 0 (which would indeed end up
            as SYSMIS in
           
                        normal
           
                       
                              calculations after spewing a host of
            warning messages.
           
                         Protecting
           
                       
                              the division with DO IF will render the
            same result.
           
                         So, my using
           
                       
                              SYSMIS in this case is deliberate and
            significant in
           
                        reflecting
           
                       
                              the inability of the system to caary out
            the
           
                        computation.
           
                       
                             
                              --
                              In MATRIX such an misadventure results in
            a fatal
           
                        untrappable
           
                       
                              error and SPSS takes its ball and goes
            home (end of
           
                        game), leading
           
                       
                              to unhappy emails and or phone calls.  
           
                       
                             
                             
                              My shameless hack attempts to capitalize
            on the
           
                        cranked up
           
                       
                              energizer bunny properties of MATRIX
            vector efficiency
           
                        while
           
                       
                              gracefully avoiding division by 0.  It is
            crucial to
           
                        mop up
           
                       
                              afterwards internally to avoid ludicrous
            results but
           
                        it is easier
           
                       
                              than protecting EVERY DIVISION in MATRIX
            with the
           
                        following
           
                       
                              awkward monstrosity.
                             
                              DO IF (zero_check_matrix).
           
                       
                             
                              COMPUTE newarray = oldarray / value.
           
                       
                             
                              ELSE.
           
                       
                             
                              COMPUTE
           
                        newarray=MAKE(NROW(oldarray),NCOL(oldArray),0).
           
                       
                             
                              LOOP #=1 TO NROW(oldarray).
           
                       
                             
                              LOOP ##=1 TO NCOL(oldArray).
           
                       
                             
                              COMPUTE
            newarray(#,##)=oldarray(#,##)/value.
           
                       
                             
                              END LOOP.
           
                       
                             
                              END LOOP.
           
                       
                             
                              END IF.
                             
                              This also ends up being a PITA because one
            must take
           
                        great care to
           
                       
                              treat the resulting 0 appropriately in
            subsequent
           
                        calculations.
           
                       
                               In the HACK mode one can test for HUGE
            values which
           
                        are
           
                       
                              distinguishable from 0's which can
            legitimately arise
           
                        from 0
           
                       
                              numerators .
           
                       
                             
                              Yeah, there are trade offs, and I am
            nowhere near
           
                        solving every
           
                       
                              weird thing that can crop up in complex
            situations.
           
                       
                             
                              But, I do stand by my using SYSMIS for
            this situation
           
                        ;-)
           
                       
                             
                              --
           
                       
                             
                             
                               
                                  Art
           
                       
                                    Kendall wrote
                                  OOPS! sysmis on
           
                       
                                    right side of
           
                       
                                   
                                          assignment operator.
                                          RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 =
            COPY)
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                                       (ELSE    -999   
            = ).
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                          missing values all (-999).
                                          Art Kendall
           
                       
                                   
                                    Social Research Consultants
                                          On 4/25/2013 12:15 PM, Richard
            Ristow [via
           
                        SPSSX
           
                       
                                    Discussion]
           
                       
                                   
                                          wrote:
                                       
                                         At 09:43 AM 4/25/2013, David
            Marso wrote:
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                         
                                          >If the numbers are all
            positive then
           
                        you can nuke
           
                       
                                    the very
           
                       
                                   
                                          small fudge factor
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                          >and remove the recode.
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                          >If you have negative
            values then you
           
                        will need to
           
                       
                                    modify the
           
                       
                                   
                                          recode (I'm
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                          >sure you can sort that).
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                         
                                          >RECODE ALL (1.000001 THRU
            HI=SYSMIS).
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                         
                                          I think a cleaner way to do
            this RECODE,
           
                        sidestepping
           
                       
                                    having to
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                          choose a fudge factor, is
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                         
                                          RECODE ALL  (LO THRU 1.0 =
            COPY)
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                                       (ELSE        =
            SYSMIS).
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                         
                                          But actually, I think the
            dividing-by-zero
           
                        problem is
           
                       
                                    a strong
           
                       
                                   
                                          reason
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                          to do the computation in a
            transformation
           
                        program,
           
                       
                                    rather than
           
                       
                                   
                                          MATRIX.
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                         
                                          =====================
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                          To manage your subscription to
            SPSSX-L,
           
                        send a message
           
                       
                                    to
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                          [hidden email]
                                          (not to SPSSX-L), with no body
            text except
           
                        the
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                          command. To leave the list,
            send the
           
                        command
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                          SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                          For a list of commands to
            manage
           
                        subscriptions, send
           
                       
                                    the command
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                          INFO REFCARD
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                         
                                         
                                         
                                         
                                            If you reply to this email,
            your
           
                       
                                   
                                              message will be added to
            the
           
                        discussion below:
                                            http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719720.html    
           
                       
                                   
                                         
                                         
                                            To start a new topic under
            SPSSX
           
                        Discussion, email
           
                       
                                   
                                            [hidden
           
                       
                                      email]  
                                            To unsubscribe from SPSSX
            Discussion,
           
                        click
           
                       
                                   
                                              here .
                                            NAML
           
                       
                                 
                               
                             
                               Please
           
                       
                                reply to the list and not to my personal
            email.
           
                       
                               
                                Those desiring my consulting or training
            services
           
                        please feel
           
                       
                                free to email me.
           
                       
                               
                                ---
           
                       
                               
                                "Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque
            mittatis
           
                        margaritas vestras
           
                       
                                ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas
            pedibus suis."
           
                       
                               
                                Cum es damnatorum possederunt porcos
            iens ut salire
           
                        off
           
                       
                                sanguinum cliff in abyssum?"
                             
                             
                             
                             
                                If you reply to this email, your
           
                       
                                  message will be added to the
            discussion below:
                                http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719723.html   
           
                       
                             
                             
                                To start a new topic under SPSSX
            Discussion, email
           
                       
                                [hidden
           
                          email]  
                                To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion,
            click
           
                       
                                  here .
                                NAML
           
                     
                   
                 
                   Please
           
                    reply to the list and not to my personal email.
           
                   
                    Those desiring my consulting or training services
            please feel
           
                    free to email me.
           
                   
                    ---
           
                   
                    "Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis
            margaritas vestras
           
                    ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis."
           
                   
                    Cum es damnatorum possederunt porcos iens ut salire
            off
           
                    sanguinum cliff in abyssum?"
                 
                 
                 
                 
                    If you reply to this email, your
           
                      message will be added to the discussion below:
                    http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719750.html  
           
                 
                 
                    To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email
           
                    [hidden
              email]  
                    To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click
           
                      here .
                    NAML
         
       
     
       Please
        reply to the list and not to my personal email.
       
        Those desiring my consulting or training services please feel
        free to email me.
       
        ---
       
        "Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras
        ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis."
       
        Cum es damnatorum possederunt porcos iens ut salire off
        sanguinum cliff in abyssum?"
     
     
     
     
        If you reply to this email, your
          message will be added to the discussion below:
        http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719763.html 
     
     
        To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email
        [hidden email] 
        To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click
          here .
        NAML

[kwame woei]

Write your code in Word with the autosave interval at 1 min. That will keep the neighbours of your back ;-)

Op 26 apr. 2013 om 21:14 heeft "David Marso" <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

> Well, I guess it's difficult to account for every possibility.
> I would probably use -666 rather than -777 or can we think of something
> worse.
> -666 'SPSS has conjured an imaginary number: We have exited the Euclidean
> plane'
>
> Re Paranoia and computers.
> I had been diligently working on my code for over 2 hrs yesterday (without
> saving -yeah, big mistake-).
> Had my fingers poised over the Ctrl and the S key when all of a sudden
> Windows just went blue screen on me.  TOTAL system crash!  Lost some very
> focused difficult documentation and error handling work.
> I'll bet the neighbors next door (if they were home) were wondering WTF?
> Didn't know we have a sailor living next door.
> (CIT):Computer Induced Tourette's?
> I'm looking for the cure (good thing for everyone I don't work in a cube
> farm).
>
>
> Art Kendall wrote
>> Great!
>>
>>        -777 is very much like
>>            how I end DO IF blocks
>>              else.
>>                  Print / 'OOPS should not have
>>                      arrived here'.
>>                    compute result = -777
>>                      end if.
>>
>>                      remember just because I am paranoid does not mean
>> the
>>                        computer is not trying to mess me up.
>>
>>      Art Kendall
>> Social Research Consultants
>>      On 4/26/2013 1:54 PM, David Marso [via SPSSX Discussion] wrote:
>>
>>     I guess I would revise the value label and make it
>>      even more explicit and diagnostic.
>>
>>
>>      Again, The system could not carry out the projected game plan
>>      -&gt; SYSMIS .
>>
>>      But, upon further reflection, I guess the User Missing has an
>>      upside since
>>      1. You can't assign a VALUE LABEL to sysmis ;-(
>>
>>      2. The variable could be system missing for reasons other than a
>>      zero divide attempt.
>>
>>
>>      I think I shall do some code revision ;-)
>>
>>
>>      VALUE LABELS varlist
>>      &nbsp; -999 &nbsp;'Trapped math error: Attempted Division by 0 :
>> Inspect
>>      (varlist) involved in denominator'
>>
>>      &nbsp; -888 &nbsp;'Unable to evaluate formula: &nbsp;Missing
>> numerator :Inspect
>>      (varlist) involved in numerator '.
>>
>>      &nbsp; -777 &nbsp;'Some other things got screwed up'.
>>
>>      Good Catch Art.
>>
>>
>>      --
>>
>>
>>
>>          Art
>>            Kendall wrote
>>          Much of my time
>>            has
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; been spent on providing
>> just-in-time help of stat
>>            methods, and
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; SPSS.
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I developed a lot of my soapboxes
>> by seeing how
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; people were shooting
>> themselves in the foot.
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; My use of SYSMIS is this.
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There is a value for a variable such as
>> the system was
>>            unable to
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; follow my instructions.
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I use the occurrence of a SYSMIS value as
>> a clue in
>>            going back to
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; find out what was wrong with my
>> instructions (syntax).
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (Over the years I have come to believe
>> that it is
>>            almost always
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the instructions that are to blame.).
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I then go back and change the instruction
>> so that they
>>            provide for
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the special cases that caused the
>> original SYSMIS.
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Hence, in this instance
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; value labels varlist -999&nbsp;&nbsp;
>> &nbsp; 'missing to
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; avoid&nbsp;&nbsp; dividing by
>> zero' .
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; in public policy issues and program
>> evaluation it is
>>            very common
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; to do what in auditing is called
>> "referencing" .&nbsp; This
>>            is a
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; process where another person&nbsp; goes
>> over the whole data
>>            gathering,
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; transformation, and analysis, to check
>> that the
>>            statements made
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; are consistent with what was done.&nbsp;
>> I would not want
>>            legislation
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; or a court case to rely on&nbsp; my
>> statements unless I
>>            exercised due
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; diligence.
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; In addition to redrafting the syntax to
>> provide for
>>            the special
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; cases, I also redraft syntax to include
>> comments that
>>            explain why
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; there are warnings.
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; These go along with my soapbox about
>> readability.&nbsp;
>>            Except for my
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; first few years of using computers, by
>> 1974 or so, I
>>            came to value
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; human factors criteria, such as
>> readability of syntax
>>            and
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; listings, over machine efficiency. YMMV
>> but I find it
>>            much more
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; saving of my time in the long run to use
>> syntax that
>>            explains what
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; is going on.
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; BTW even when I am the only one who is
>> going to see
>>            the syntax,
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; emphasizing readability also helps me
>> when I am
>>            inevitably
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; interrupted during an analysis.&nbsp;
>> Even a short effort
>>            such as
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; replying to a post on this list may be
>> subject to
>>            phone calls,
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; calls of nature, meals, etc.&nbsp; Foe
>> example, I had two
>>            phone calls
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; from my&nbsp; physicians while responding
>> to this post.
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I also have a soapbox about about
>> carefully
>>            differentiating the
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; different kinds of user missing values
>> including
>>            things like
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 'missing to avoid&nbsp;&nbsp; dividing by
>> zero' .&nbsp; I find this
>>            very useful
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; in the reasoning that the statistics are
>> in support
>>            of.&nbsp;&nbsp; But that
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; is another story.
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Art Kendall
>>
>>            Social Research Consultants
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; On 4/26/2013 10:03 AM, David Marso [via
>> SPSSX
>>            Discussion] wrote:
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Art,
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; What is your concept of SYSMIS and
>> do you think it
>>            should ever
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; remain in a data file?
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Isn't the very essence of system missing
>> an entity
>>            that cannot be
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; assigned a value by the 'system'?
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I would consider division by zero as a
>> candidate for
>>            treatment as
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; SYSTEM MISSING rather than USER MISSING.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Interesting, you have been using SPSS 11
>> years longer
>>            than I have
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (1983). &nbsp;
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; However, I did spend 11 years working at
>> SPSS in the
>>            trenches (6
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; doing teksport,5 as a Full time
>> Consultant)- Teksport
>>            was
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; existence in the belly of the
>> beast-answering all
>>            sorts of 'exotic
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; questions' (Macro, INPUT PROGRAM, MATRIX
>> etc -yeah,
>>            all the
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; weirdness that nobody else wanted to
>> touch with a 10
>>            foot pole-
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;).
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; In the early days of my taking on the
>> 'exotic' I
>>            probably learned
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; more from the users calling in than they
>> learned from
>>            me. &nbsp;My very
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; first exposure to macro was someone
>> trying to do:
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; !LET !arg2=!arg1 + 1.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Well, that had me baffled. &nbsp;Well it
>> is beyond obvious
>>            now, but
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; believe it or not, once upon a time I was
>> a rank
>>            newbie too. &nbsp;
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I didn't pop out of my mother with a full
>> blown SPSS
>>            manual in my
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; brain ;-)
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There was even a special folder in the
>> support
>>            database called
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "Marso Madness". &nbsp;I wanted to call
>> it "Doing Unnatural
>>            Acts with
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; SPSS" but that got vetoed ;-). &nbsp;
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I LEARNED what I know today by being
>> exposed to all
>>            the weird
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; things 'weird' people try to do with SPSS
>> for 6 years,
>>            8 hours a
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; day. &nbsp;
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I seriously doubt that support will even
>> consider
>>            answering those
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; sorts of questions any more. &nbsp;Maybe
>> I'll call them for
>>            the heck of
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; it and screw with their minds with some
>> easy but
>>            actual 'how do I
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; do this' question. and see how long it
>> takes them to
>>            refer me to
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the consulting department ;-)))
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Art
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Kendall wrote
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I admit it is a
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; soapbox
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; topic.&nbsp;&nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> You surely are not a beginner and despite
>>            having used
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; SPSS since
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; 1972 I still learn
>>            from your
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; posts.&nbsp;
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; However, people who
>>            follow&nbsp; the
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; list or search the
>>            archives
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; are at least
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; to some degree
>>            learners.
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; To aid debugging and
>>            for
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; quality assurance review
>> I
>>            try to have
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; people catch
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; all instances of sysmis,
>>            redraft the
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; syntax,&nbsp; and
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; provide for that
>> condition
>>            in the
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> transformations.&nbsp;
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Then assign a missing
>> value
>>            that can
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; be labelled.
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Redrafting would
>> not be
>>            finished
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; until all
>> sysmis
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; had been changed to
>>            to user
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; missing with
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; value labels
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; for example in
>> this
>>            instance I would
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; put
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; value labels varlist -999
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; 'missing to avoid
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; dividing by
>>            zero' .
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> Art Kendall
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Social Research
>> Consultants
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> On 4/25/2013 1:47 PM, David Marso [via
>>            SPSSX
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Discussion] wrote:
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp;In principle I agree with the sysmis on
>>            right side
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> for the most part.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> However in this case it is a direct
>>            correlate to the
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; notion that
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> the SYSTEM could NOT carry out some
>>            operation namely
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; an attempted
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> division by 0 (which would indeed end up
>>            as SYSMIS in
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; normal
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> calculations after spewing a host of
>>            warning messages.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Protecting
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> the division with DO IF will render the
>>            same result.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;So, my using
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> SYSMIS in this case is deliberate and
>>            significant in
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; reflecting
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> the inability of the system to caary out
>>            the
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; computation.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> --
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> In MATRIX such an misadventure results in
>>            a fatal
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; untrappable
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> error and SPSS takes its ball and goes
>>            home (end of
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; game), leading
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> to unhappy emails and or phone calls. &nbsp;
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> My shameless hack attempts to capitalize
>>            on the
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; cranked up
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> energizer bunny properties of MATRIX
>>            vector efficiency
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; while
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> gracefully avoiding division by 0. &nbsp;It is
>>            crucial to
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; mop up
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> afterwards internally to avoid ludicrous
>>            results but
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; it is easier
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> than protecting EVERY DIVISION in MATRIX
>>            with the
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; following
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> awkward monstrosity.
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> DO IF (zero_check_matrix).
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> COMPUTE newarray = oldarray / value.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> ELSE.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> COMPUTE
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> newarray=MAKE(NROW(oldarray),NCOL(oldArray),0).
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> LOOP #=1 TO NROW(oldarray).
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> LOOP ##=1 TO NCOL(oldArray).
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> COMPUTE
>>            newarray(#,##)=oldarray(#,##)/value.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> END LOOP.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> END LOOP.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> END IF.
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> This also ends up being a PITA because one
>>            must take
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; great care to
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> treat the resulting 0 appropriately in
>>            subsequent
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; calculations.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp;In the HACK mode one can test for HUGE
>>            values which
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; are
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> distinguishable from 0's which can
>>            legitimately arise
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; from 0
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> numerators .
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> Yeah, there are trade offs, and I am
>>            nowhere near
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; solving every
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> weird thing that can crop up in complex
>>            situations.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> But, I do stand by my using SYSMIS for
>>            this situation
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ;-)
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> --
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; Art
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Kendall wrote
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; OOPS! sysmis on
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; right side of
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; assignment operator.
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; RECODE ALL &nbsp;(LO THRU 1.0 =
>>            COPY)
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;(ELSE &nbsp;&nbsp; -999 &nbsp;&nbsp;
>>            = ).
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; missing values all (-999).
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Art Kendall
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Social Research Consultants
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; On 4/25/2013 12:15 PM, Richard
>>            Ristow [via
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; SPSSX
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Discussion]
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; wrote:
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;At 09:43 AM 4/25/2013, David
>>            Marso wrote:
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &gt;If the numbers are all
>>            positive then
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; you can nuke
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the very
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; small fudge factor
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &gt;and remove the recode.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &gt;If you have negative
>>            values then you
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; will need to
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; modify the
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; recode (I'm
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &gt;sure you can sort that).
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &gt;RECODE ALL (1.000001 THRU
>>            HI=SYSMIS).
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I think a cleaner way to do
>>            this RECODE,
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; sidestepping
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; having to
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; choose a fudge factor, is
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; RECODE ALL &nbsp;(LO THRU 1.0 =
>>            COPY)
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;(ELSE &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;=
>>            SYSMIS).
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; But actually, I think the
>>            dividing-by-zero
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; problem is
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; a strong
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; reason
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; to do the computation in a
>>            transformation
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; program,
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; rather than
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; MATRIX.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; =====================
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; To manage your subscription to
>>            SPSSX-L,
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; send a message
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; to
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [hidden email]
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (not to SPSSX-L), with no body
>>            text except
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; command. To leave the list,
>>            send the
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; command
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; For a list of commands to
>>            manage
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; subscriptions, send
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the command
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; INFO REFCARD
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If you reply to this
>> email,
>>            your
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; message will be
>> added to
>>            the
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; discussion below:
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719720.html
>> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; To start a new topic
>> under
>>            SPSSX
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Discussion, email
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [hidden
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; email] &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; To unsubscribe from SPSSX
>>            Discussion,
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; click
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; here .
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NAML
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp;Please
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; reply to the list and not to my personal
>>            email.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; Those desiring my consulting or training
>>            services
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; please feel
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; free to email me.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; ---
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; "Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque
>>            mittatis
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; margaritas vestras
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas
>>            pedibus suis."
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; Cum es damnatorum possederunt porcos
>>            iens ut salire
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; off
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; sanguinum cliff in abyssum?"
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; If you reply to this email, your
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; message will be added to the
>>            discussion below:
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp;
>> http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719723.html
>> &nbsp;&nbsp;
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; To start a new topic under SPSSX
>>            Discussion, email
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; [hidden
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; email] &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion,
>>            click
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; &nbsp; here .
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> &nbsp; NAML
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Please
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; reply to the list and not to my
>> personal email.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Those desiring my consulting or
>> training services
>>            please feel
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; free to email me.
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ---
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque
>> mittatis
>>            margaritas vestras
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ante porcos ne forte conculcent
>> eas pedibus suis."
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Cum es damnatorum possederunt
>> porcos iens ut salire
>>            off
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; sanguinum cliff in abyssum?"
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If you reply to this email, your
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; message will be added to
>> the discussion below:
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>> http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719750.html
>> &nbsp;
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; To start a new topic under SPSSX
>> Discussion, email
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [hidden
>>              email] &nbsp;
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; To unsubscribe from SPSSX
>> Discussion, click
>>
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; here .
>>            &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NAML
>>
>>
>>
>>       Please
>>        reply to the list and not to my personal email.
>>
>>        Those desiring my consulting or training services please feel
>>        free to email me.
>>
>>        ---
>>
>>        "Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras
>>        ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis."
>>
>>        Cum es damnatorum possederunt porcos iens ut salire off
>>        sanguinum cliff in abyssum?"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>        If you reply to this email, your
>>          message will be added to the discussion below:
>>
>> http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719763.html
>>
>>
>>        To start a new topic under SPSSX Discussion, email
>>
>
>> ml-node+s1045642n1068821h68@.nabble
>
>>
>>        To unsubscribe from SPSSX Discussion, click
>>          here .
>>        NAML
>
>
>
>
>
> -----
> Please reply to the list and not to my personal email.
> Those desiring my consulting or training services please feel free to email me.
> ---
> "Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis."
> Cum es damnatorum possederunt porcos iens ut salire off sanguinum cliff in abyssum?"
> --
> View this message in context: http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/do-repeat-tp5719707p5719766.html
> Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> =====================
> To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
> [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
> command. To leave the list, send the command
> SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
> For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
> INFO REFCARD

=====================
To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
[hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
command. To leave the list, send the command
SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
INFO REFCARD

[MR]

Team,

I have one problem on my hand and am running out of options on which statistics to use in SPSS. First, I know that the what I want to do is not advisable but trust me, I have fought my battle on this. This is what I want to achieve:

Issue: We did wave 1 survey using 5-point satisfaction scale. The second wave was conducted using 5-point agreement scale. Expectedly, top-box scores from agreement scale when compared to top-box score of satisfaction scale was low by 10% points. For e.g., agreement scale top box in wave 2 came out as 50% while wave 1 it was 60%.

Goal: I have compared the historical data and conclude that score difference is purely due to scale change. However, i want to normalize the wave 2 score so that I can compare with wave 1. I know this is not advisable but I have to do this. I googled but could not find any statistics that helps to normalize the scores - indeed I don't know where to begin. I need a scientific method to normalize the scores so that they are comparable. I don't want to conclude that performance dropped by 10% just because scale changed.

Your wisdom and help is very much required.

Thanks,
Mike

=====================
To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
[hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
command. To leave the list, send the command
SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
INFO REFCARD

[Garry Gelade]

Mike,

The only thing I can think of is to run the survey on a subset of
individuals (preferably a stratified random sample) using both forms of the
scale. Then regress one score on the other. You can then apply the
regression results to rescore your previous survey into the alternative
scale form.

Garry Gelade


-----Original Message-----
From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of MR
Sent: 28 April 2013 01:23
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Normalizing scores

Team,

I have one problem on my hand and am running out of options on which
statistics to use in SPSS. First, I know that the what I want to do is not
advisable but trust me, I have fought my battle on this. This is what I want
to achieve:

Issue: We did wave 1 survey using 5-point satisfaction scale. The second
wave was conducted using 5-point agreement scale. Expectedly, top-box scores
from agreement scale when compared to top-box score of satisfaction scale
was low by 10% points. For e.g., agreement scale top box in wave 2 came out
as 50% while wave 1 it was 60%.

Goal: I have compared the historical data and conclude that score difference
is purely due to scale change. However, i want to normalize the wave 2 score
so that I can compare with wave 1. I know this is not advisable but I have
to do this. I googled but could not find any statistics that helps to
normalize the scores - indeed I don't know where to begin. I need a
scientific method to normalize the scores so that they are comparable. I
don't want to conclude that performance dropped by 10% just because scale
changed.

Your wisdom and help is very much required.

Thanks,
Mike

=====================
To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
[hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of
commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD

=====================
To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
[hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
command. To leave the list, send the command
SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
INFO REFCARD