On 2010-07-14 3:53, Govind Chandra wrote:
Hi,
I find that the p-value printed out by wilcox.test() and the p-value
stored in the p.value attribute in the object returned by
wilcox.test() are not the same. There seems to be a lower limit of
2.2e-16 for the printed value although it does say that it is less
than that. What I want to know is the reason for the lower limit in
the printed value of p-value and also whether I am doing the right
thing by picking up the p-value from the p.value attribute of the
returned object. An example R session is pasted below (although the
test is probably not the right one for the kind of data).
x<- rnorm(500, mean = 30, sd = 3);
y<- rnorm(500, mean = 8000, sd = 6);
wilcox.test(x, y, alternative = "l");
Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction
data: x and y
W = 0, p-value< 2.2e-16
alternative hypothesis: true location shift is less than 0
wt<- wilcox.test(x, y, alternative = "l");
wt$p.value;
[1] 2.928121e-165
Are you really interested in P-values smaller than 10^(-16)?
Why? A reported P-value of 3e-165 is certainly not accurate
to 165 decimal places and should perhaps be reported as zero,
as t.test() does.
As to your example: there is no sense at all in doing a
test on such data (other than to satisfy some hypothetical
fanatical journal editor).
-Peter Ehlers
My version for R is 2.11.1 (2010-05-31) running on x86_64 GNU/Linux
(RHEL).
Thanks in advance for any help with this.
Govind
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
