Ducan,
First, thank you for your reply.
As I previously noted in a reply to Peter Dalgaard, you, and he, are
correct. I missed something quite obvious. Sometimes it does not pay to
do statistics early in the morning! Again, many thanks,
John
John Sorkin M.D., Ph.D.
Chief, Biostatistics and Inform
On 12/9/2006 9:26 AM, John Sorkin wrote:
> R 2.3.1
> Windows XP
>
> I am surprised at the lack of precision in R, as noted below. I would
> expect the values to be closer to zero, particularly the later examples
> where the sample size is quite large.
These are all cases where the theoretical di
John Sorkin wrote:
> R 2.3.1
> Windows XP
>
> I am surprised at the lack of precision in R, as noted below. I would
> expect the values to be closer to zero, particularly the later examples
> where the sample size is quite large.
>
>
>> mean(rnorm(500,0,1))
>>
> [1] -0.03209727
>
>> mea
Indeed, you are correct! In never pays to do stats too early in the
morning!
John
John Sorkin M.D., Ph.D.
Chief, Biostatistics and Informatics
Baltimore VA Medical Center GRECC,
University of Maryland School of Medicine Claude D. Pepper OAIC,
University of Maryland Clinical Nutrition Research Unit
R 2.3.1
Windows XP
I am surprised at the lack of precision in R, as noted below. I would
expect the values to be closer to zero, particularly the later examples
where the sample size is quite large.
> mean(rnorm(500,0,1))
[1] -0.03209727
> mean(rnorm(5000,0,1))
[1] -0.005991322
> mean(rnorm(5000
