Shi, Tao [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi, Ted:
I guess this problem is platform-dependent. I just tied it on a R
1.6.1 runing on Win2K, it gave me two different p values. But when I
tried it on R1.7.0 on a Linux Server, I got the similar result as
you did. I have filed a bug-report as Peter
I'm using R1.7.0 runing with Win XP. Thanks,
...Tao
x
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 149 151
[2,]18
t(x)
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 1491
[2,] 1518
chisq.test(x, simulate.p.value=T, B=10)
Pearson's Chi-squared test with
On 15-Jul-03 Tao Shi wrote:
x
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 149 151
[2,]18
t(x)
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 1491
[2,] 1518
chisq.test(x, simulate.p.value=T, B=10)
Pearson's Chi-squared test with simulated p-value (based on
1e+05 replicates)
data: x
X-squared = 5.2001, df =
Hi, Ted and Dennis:
Thanks for your speedy replies! I don't think this happens just randomly, rather, I'm
thinking it may be due to the way chisq.test function handles simulation. Here shows
why: (Ted, I think there is an error in your code, tx should be t(x) )
x
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 149
Message -
From: Shi, Tao [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 4:37 pm
Subject: RE: [R] Why two chisq.test p values differ when the contingency
Hi, Ted and Dennis:
Thanks for your speedy replies! I don't think this happens just
randomly, rather, I'm thinking it may be due
Shi, Tao [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi, Ted and Dennis:
Thanks for your speedy replies! I don't think this happens just randomly, rather,
I'm thinking it may be due to the way chisq.test function handles simulation. Here
shows why: (Ted, I think there is an error in your code, tx should
On 15-Jul-03 Shi, Tao wrote:
Hi, Ted and Dennis:
Thanks for your speedy replies! I don't think this happens just
randomly, rather, I'm thinking it may be due to the way chisq.test
function handles simulation. Here shows why: (Ted, I think there is an
error in your code, tx should be t(x)
Hi, Ted:
I guess this problem is platform-dependent. I just tied it on a R 1.6.1 runing on
Win2K, it gave me two different p values. But when I tried it on R1.7.0 on a Linux
Server, I got the similar result as you did. I have filed a bug-report as Peter
suggested.
...Tao
[EMAIL
