o:r-sig-phylo-requ...@r-project.org> 於
2016年12月16日 19:00 寫道：
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 05:02:23 +0100
From: Carmelo Fruciano <c.fruci...@unict.it<mailto:c.fruci...@unict.it>>
To: r-sig-phylo@r-project.org<mailto:r-sig-phylo@r-project.org>
Subject: Re: [R-sig-phylo
--
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:49:59 -0200
From: F?bio Machado <macfa...@gmail.com>
To: "r-sig-phylo@r-project.org" <r-sig-phylo@r-project.org>
Subject: Re: [R-sig-phylo] bonferroni corrections in Blomberg's K and
Pagel's lambda
Message-ID: <bc3b8326-2692-44
--
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:49:59 -0200
From: F?bio Machado <macfa...@gmail.com>
To: "r-sig-phylo@r-project.org" <r-sig-phylo@r-project.org>
Subject: Re: [R-sig-phylo] bonferroni corrections in Blomberg's K and
Pagel's lambda
Message-ID: <bc3b8326-2692
Recently I came across a similar issue, but I had a far greater number of
repeated tests, 595 actually. If i used 10.000 permutations to access
significance, I noticed that I could never reject the null hypothesis. That is
because for 10.000 permutations, the minimum p value is 1e-04 and the
Dear Ting-Wen,
This is a question about statistical philosophy in general, not specific to
tests for phylogenetic signal. How best to correct for making multiple
tests with related data is a huge and complicated topic. Another issue is
whether your traits are correlated with each other, which
