As the image shows, I calculate the pt value and rank it. Then I used which function to find the index of the largest value pt. Since there are two values of 1, I need to find the first index, so I use min function, and it does give me value of 4. Then I want to delete the 4th value in pt, and I suppose to see 0.85, 0.713, 0.666, and 1, because I only want to delete one number. However, it somehow deletes two number stead. What is the reason, and how can I fix it?
Asked
Active
Viewed 83 times
0
-
6When asking for help, you should include a simple [reproducible example](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5963269/how-to-make-a-great-r-reproducible-example) with sample input and desired output that can be used to test and verify possible solutions. Don't post code as an image. If you just want to delete item `i`, then do `pt[-i]` – MrFlick Feb 09 '19 at 02:41
-
1Your last line calls all elements in pt that are NOT equal to pt[i]. That is all elements that are not pt[4] which is 1.0. This is why it returns everything but 1.0. MrFlick is correct – twb10 Feb 09 '19 at 03:11
1 Answers
2
After i
is calculated, just do
pt <- pt[-i]
Then type pt
in the console and you will have the desired output.

Rich Scriven
- 97,041
- 11
- 181
- 245

Shrikant Soni
- 21
- 2
-
This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient [reputation](https://stackoverflow.com/help/whats-reputation) you will be able to [comment on any post](https://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges/comment); instead, [provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/214173/why-do-i-need-50-reputation-to-comment-what-can-i-do-instead). - [From Review](/review/low-quality-posts/22162487) – Chris Gong Feb 09 '19 at 17:07
-
1@ChrisGong - yes it does. We have a new contributor who didn't properly format the code. Fixed now :) – Rich Scriven Feb 09 '19 at 17:26
-
PS - you can hit the "edit" button and see how I formatted the code. And there is a link to markdown help in the upper right corner of the editing box. – Rich Scriven Feb 09 '19 at 17:30
-
@RichScriven my apologies, this was definitely a mistake on my part – Chris Gong Feb 09 '19 at 18:41