heights <- c(69, 65, 74)
names <- c("Faris", "Jason", "Natty")
cbind(heights,names)
## heights names
## [1,] "69" "Faris"
## [2,] "65" "Jason"
## [3,] "74" "Natty"
This command assigns each height to specific name in its respective order, the class of it is a matrix.
NCbirths <- read.csv("~/Desktop/STATS 13/NCbirths.csv")
head(NCbirths)
## Gender Premie weight Apgar1 Fage Mage Feduc Meduc TotPreg Visits Marital
## 1 Male No 124 8 31 25 13 14 1 13 Married
## 2 Female No 177 8 36 26 9 12 2 11 Unmarried
## 3 Male No 107 3 30 16 12 8 2 10 Unmarried
## 4 Female No 144 6 33 37 12 14 2 12 Unmarried
## 5 Male No 117 9 36 33 10 16 2 19 Married
## 6 Female No 98 4 31 29 14 16 3 20 Married
## Racemom Racedad Hispmom Hispdad Gained Habit MomPriorCond BirthDef
## 1 White White NotHisp NotHisp 40 NonSmoker None None
## 2 White White Mexican Mexican 20 NonSmoker None None
## 3 White Unknown Mexican Unknown 70 NonSmoker At Least One None
## 4 White White NotHisp NotHisp 50 NonSmoker None None
## 5 White Black NotHisp NotHisp 40 NonSmoker At Least One None
## 6 White White NotHisp NotHisp 21 NonSmoker None None
## DelivComp BirthComp
## 1 At Least One None
## 2 At Least One None
## 3 At Least One None
## 4 At Least One None
## 5 None None
## 6 None None
weights <- NCbirths$weight
# Weights are most likely listed in ounces given that grams would be too small.
weights.in.pounds <- weights * 0.0625 #ounces to pounds conversion factor
weights.in.pounds[1:20]
## [1] 7.7500 11.0625 6.6875 9.0000 7.3125 6.1250 9.1875 8.6250 6.5000
## [10] 7.6875 9.5625 8.0625 7.4375 6.7500 6.6250 7.8125 7.1875 8.0000
## [19] 8.2500 5.1875
mean_weight_pounds <- mean(weights.in.pounds)
mean_weight_pounds
## [1] 7.2532
library(mosaic)
tally(NCbirths$Habit, format = "percent")
## X
## NonSmoker Smoker
## 90.61245 9.38755
help(format)
library(mosaic)
set.seed(123)
output <- do(200) * rflip(1998,prob=0.2)
dotPlot(output$prop)
histogram(output$prop)
# Based on my plot and response from question #9, the simulated proportions were higher around 20%
# and my actual, observed proportion is 9.39% so there is dissonance
# between the two. This suggests that the observed proportion
# is actually lower than the 20%.