The results weren't BIZARRE (or even bizarre). You didn't understand them, but that doesn't make them bizarre. (I didn't understand them either, but thanks to the replies, now I do).
Why not send something more similar to your dataset to ensure you get relevant answers ? Jeremy On 14 June 2011 15:26, genecleaner <geneclea...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Daniel and Sarah, > > Thanks you for your rude replies . > The script that I provided was only an example and to illustrate the > problem. It makes perfectly sense to use the Wilcoxon test on my datasets. > However, you replies were nonsensical, since you could not solve the problem > but rather just bullied me. > > Anyway, this is the solution to the problem: the exact=TRUE statement should > be added > >> w <- wilcox.test(c(1:50),(c(1:50)+100)) >> w$p.value > [1] 7.066072e-18 >> w <- wilcox.test(c(1:50),(c(1:50)+100), exact=TRUE) >> w$p.value > [1] 1.982331e-29 > > Best regards, > genecleaner > > -- > View this message in context: > http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/BIZARRE-results-from-wilcox-test-tp3597818p3598039.html > Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ______________________________________________ > 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.
