DPD interaction throws: Expected floating point parameter in input script or data file

Why do I get this error?

LAMMPS (2 Aug 2018)
Lattice spacing in x,y,z = 1.51967 2.63215 1.51967
Created orthogonal box = (0 0 -0.151967) to (75.9836 65.8037 0.151967)
1 by 1 by 1 MPI processor grid
Lattice spacing in x,y,z = 1.51967 2.63215 1.51967
Created 2500 atoms
Time spent = 0.000469208 secs
Lattice spacing in x,y,z = 1.51967 2.63215 1.51967
Created 2500 atoms
Time spent = 0.000303984 secs
ERROR: Expected floating point parameter in input script or data file (…/pair_dpd.cpp:229)
Last command: pair_coeff * * dpd 25.0 1.0

Input file:

units lj

timestep 0.001

dimension 2
boundary p p p
atom_style atomic
neighbor 0.3 bin
neigh_modify every 20 delay 0 check no
variable temp equal 0.5

lattice hex 0.5
region simbox block 0 50 0 25 -0.1 0.1
create_box 2 simbox

lattice hex 0.5
create_atoms 1 region simbox

lattice hex 0.5 origin 0.5 0.5 0
create_atoms 2 region simbox

mass 1 1
mass 2 1.0

comm_modify vel yes
velocity all create {temp} 343432 dist gaussian pair_style dpd {temp} 25.0 12345132

pair_coeff * * dpd 25.0 1.0
pair_coeff 1 2 dpd 50.0 1.0
fix 1 all nvt temp {temp} {temp} 0.1

dump 1 all atom 50000 out/dump2_temp_${temp}.lammpstrj
write_data dpd_data.all
thermo 500
run 50000000

Why do I get this error?

for exactly the reasons, that LAMMPS tells you: you are not providing
the correct pair_coeff command. LAMMPS expects an integer number where
your input incorrectly does not have it.

this is starting to get silly. you cannot continue to post questions,
which are so trivial to sort out to a mailing list, or you will be in
very deep trouble when you are hitting the first serious problem,
which will require more knowledge and care to resolve. while your
previous questions could be attributed to inexperience combined with a
little carelessness, you are now moving toward ignorance and
negligence. that is not good and will spell doom for your career in
doing simulations. haven't you learned from the responses to your
previous questions, that you have to pay much more attention to
reading the LAMMPS documentation? haven't you understood, that details
matter to compute programs?

if you study the manual careful enough, you should find out where you
problem is and resolve it by yourself.

axel.

I really don’t understand how say: “ERROR: Expected floating point parameter in input script or data file (…/pair_dpd.cpp:229)”
on this line: “Last command: pair_coeff * * dpd 25.0 1.0”
Makes any sense. Where do I have integers in: pair_coeff * * dpd 25.0 1.0

In fact blaming me for not reading the Manual [1] is insulting: this is the from the Manual:

pair_style dpd 1.0 2.5 34387
pair_coeff * * 3.0 1.0

this is from my input file:

pair_style dpd 0.5 25.0 12345132
pair_coeff * * dpd 25.0 1.0

Where is the difference? What’s wrong here, please spot the error.

[1] https://lammps.sandia.gov/doc/pair_dpd.html

You have an additional “dpd” in your pair_coeff command. Please try to not take criticism (too) personal, that will not help once you have to deal with peer review.

In fact blaming me for not reading the Manual [1] is insulting: this is the from the Manual:

i am not saying, that you didn't read the manual. i am saying, that
you didn't compare your input with the manual careful enough.
remember, that you mixed up pair_style and pair_coeff before. i am not
trying to insult you, but i am *challenging* you. as a scientist, you
*should* have the ability to observe carefully and thus be able to
spot the difference.

pair_style dpd 1.0 2.5 34387
pair_coeff * * 3.0 1.0

this is from my input file:
pair_style dpd 0.5 25.0 12345132
pair_coeff * * dpd 25.0 1.0

Where is the difference? What's wrong here, please spot the error.

there is a *very* obvious difference.

axel.

sorry, my bad. i was supposed to write just "number" instead of
"integer number". so you have something that is not a number where
there should be a number. if you compare with the examples in the
manual, it should be very obvious.

axel.

You have an additional "dpd" in your pair_coeff command. Please try to not take criticism (too) personal, that will not help once you have to deal with peer review.

it is not just peer review, but any scientific work. making claims,
that are easy to spot by others as incorrect, can be career suicide.
if you cannot address this on this small scale, where the only damage
is a little dent in your self-esteem, how can this ever work out, when
the stakes are high? don't assume that people give you a hard time out
of spite. it can also be to help you understand things better. you
learn more deeply and with a more lasting effect this way.

it all boils down to a matter of perspective: never assume that you
did everything correctly. if you are new to simulations or a specific
software package, chances are that you didn't, even if you put in a
lot of effort and care. mistakes happen to everybody but you have to
understand, that it is not the job of the software (or the people on
this mailing list) to tell you how to correct your mistakes. you have
to learn to figure them out yourself. if the software tells you there
is a mistake, you have to either correct it, or you would have to
apply the scientific method and find convincing evidence, that the
software is at fault. which is not easy to do for something that is
used a lot and thus has been tested a lot.

axel.