Welcome to the JMP User Community!

Latest Discussions

• "Replace missing with previous value" for multiple column selection on JMP19

  Previous versions of JMP would let users select multiple columns and use the "Replace missing with previous value" option from the right-click drop-down menu, applying the function to all columns selected. With JMP19, I can only do it if I select one column at a time. Is there a way to keep doing with with multiple columns selected? 

  AcceptanceOwl96

  Discussions |

  May 13, 2026 9:59 AM

  124 views | 0 replies

• How to Look at Range Data High Medium Low

  Looking for the Best way to analysis Data when I have Ranges Upper, Mid and Lower for both Voltage and Freq. data.  See RED Columns.  Guess I could perform a Control Chart or Dist. but like to to see if their is a shift of this many Electrical Devices.   Any Suggestions?  

  CREV

  Discussions |

  May 8, 2026 2:34 PM

  173 views | 0 replies

• Inquiry regarding the procedure for PLS Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA)

  [Environment] Version: JMP(r) Student Edition 19.1.0 (914688) License: For Academic Use Only (Expires: 2027/04/13) OS: Microsoft Windows 11 Home (10.0.26200.0)
  [Inquiry] Regarding the procedure for performing PLS Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA)
  I am attempting to perform a PLS Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) using JMP Student Edition, as I understand this feature is supported in this edition. I ...

  SignBurro204

  Discussions |

  Apr 24, 2026 3:30 AM

  232 views | 0 replies

• defining function scope changes how result is returned

  Why don't all three of these return their unevaluated argument like the first one does? Is there a way to make the last two work like the first? Inside the function, e is still unevaluated, this seems to happen when the result is returned. names default to here(1); ns = New Namespace("n"); foo = function({e}, Name Expr(e) ); ns:bar = function({e}, Name Expr(e) ); show( foo( expr( notavar...

  ih

  Discussions |

  Apr 20, 2026 1:45 PM

  200 views | 0 replies

• How does JMP bias the rate of count when calculating the probability of Partition platform with categorical responses?

  For categorical responses Partition has the response rates that are slightly biased away from zero to avoid having attributed probabilities of zero. I would like to know how to calcurate the biased probabilities.

  Takashi

  Discussions |

  Apr 16, 2026 8:41 PM

  205 views | 0 replies