spatial rarefaction function miscalculating richness for n=1 about mobr HOT 6 CLOSED

On Jan 11, 2017 9:38 AM, "Dan McGlinn" ***@***.***> wrote: Assigned #115 <#115> to @rueuntal <https://github.com/rueuntal>. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#115 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGoPjA2UbVOkyhstmt9Flse-hvkGiLUks5rRQVzgaJpZM4Lgy1t> .

On Jan 11, 2017 11:36 AM, "Dan McGlinn" ***@***.***> wrote: It does appear to be because of the reordering b/c I changed this part of the rarefaction function and it returned the correct answer: # I changed this old line in the function rarefaction new_order = sample(1:n) # to this so that the shuffled order stopped new_order = 1:n — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#115 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGoPvlvD5uAMdmgtET8cv6EG5MAlqjIks5rRSEbgaJpZM4Lgy1t> .

On Jan 11, 2017 11:57 AM, "Dan McGlinn" ***@***.***> wrote: I think so on the sensitivity analyses let me first make sure this updated version matches some simple by hand examples to make sure there are no other bugs. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#115 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGoPqTbd5i4JKaHaJuLFoOD0TSrWXeqks5rRSYOgaJpZM4Lgy1t> .