LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (January 2010, week 1)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:50:25 -0500
Reply-To:     Peter Flom <>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Peter Flom <peterflomconsulting@MINDSPRING.COM>
Subject:      Re: New Comparison Operators? - WAS: missing numerical values = -
Comments: To: Lou <lpogoda@HOTMAIL.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>"Jonathan Goldberg" wrote >> This is a hoary question. Logically speaking, having x < 2500 resolve to >> true when x is missing is absurd, and having x = y resolve to true when >> both x and y are missing is ludicrous. Missing means "I don't know." If >> x and y are heights, you are claiming that you know that two heights are >> equal when you don't know what either of them is. >

Lou replied

>At the risk of seeming the fool, I've always thought of it as: > >if X = "I don't know" and y = "I don't know" then x does equal y.

Hmmm... paraphrasing Bill Clinton

"It depends on what your definition of equals equals". :-)

In the example Jonathan used, a person might not know their height, but probably knows it approximately.

A person who thinks she is about 5'1", but says "I don't know" because she isn't sure, maybe she's 5'0", does NOT equal a man who thinks he's 6'2", but might be 6'1".

Of course, that's a little silly, but it's easy to come up with much less silly examples.

On this, I like the R method better. If you ask if missing = missing, you get missing.


Peter L. Flom, PhD Statistical Consultant Website: http://www DOT statisticalanalysisconsulting DOT com/ Writing; Twitter: @peterflom

Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page