similar to: wilcox.exact() problem

Dear R friends, I want to compare two datasets and I get the message Error in .Call("cpermdist2", ma = as.integer(m), mb = as.integer(col), : negative length vectors are not allowed after specifying the exact test. I'm using the exactRankTests package. Do you suggest me using the coin library, or is there anything "wrong" with my data? Kind regards, David --

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1120 Bug ID: 1120 Summary: nf_tables_check_loops error on adding element to vmap Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Ubuntu Status: NEW Severity: trivial Priority: P5 Component: kernel Assignee: pablo at

Hi, In the exactRankTest package, I've become aware that you can get anomalous p-values (i.e., above 1) from the wilcox.exact method, as in: > wilcox.exact(c(-0.6,0.8,-0.5)) Exact Wilcoxon signed rank test data: c(-0.6, 0.8, -0.5) V = 3, p-value = 1.25 alternative hypothesis: true mu is not equal to 0 This is disturbing. Has anyone encountered this before, and if so

First and foremost, excellent library - excellent work. Thank you. Now, here''s what I''m doing: <div id="wrapper"> <fieldset id="page_1"> <legend>Page</legend> <fieldset id="group_1"> Group </fieldset> <fieldset id="group_2"> Group </fieldset>

Hi Rowland, Thanks for taking the time to look at this. I will post the log 10 output a bit later. Btw, what logs with log level 10 are you interested in? Here’s my samba config with sensitive info replaced with placeholders: [global] access based share enum = yes browseable = yes comment = <COMMENT> create mask = 0660 directory mask =

Full_Name: Patrick Hodgson Version: 2.0 OS: solaris 2.9 Submission from: (NULL) (65.94.128.161) The value reported for the parameter W in the function wilcox.exact appears to be incorrect. I have checked the reference in the help file for this function (Myles & Hollander 1973, as well as 2nd ed. 1999 by same authors) and it is clear that W is the sum of the ranks of the data set with the

> Lets hold off with logs, do you know that if you remove everything > that should be in a share from the [global] part of your smb.conf, you > get left with just '[global]’. The share actually comes from an include file. I made it look like it’s part of the main config for simplicity. > It also doesn't help that everything > that is in [global] is also in the share. It’s

hi, i am looking for a way to correct for ties in the wilcoxon signed rank test -> e.g. wilcox.test(x,mu=.5) one way i have heard of is to look up the p value in a table that has been produced by Buck (1975). obviously i need to know the T-value to do that -> how do i get the T-value from the wilcox.test() function. is there any other (already implemented) way to correct for ties in

Full_Name: David Wooff Version: 1.7.0 OS: i686-pc-linux-gnu Submission from: (NULL) (129.234.4.10) wilcox.test exits with error message when confidence interval required, under some situations. I suspect this occurs when the data contain a zero and for some data lengths only: print(wilcox.test(c(2,1,4,3,6,-5,0),conf.int=T)) fails print(wilcox.test(c(2,1,4,3,6,-5,0,1),conf.int=T)) works

There is a fairly new bug in wilcox.test in R-2.2.1 (stable). It wasn't there when I last taught nonparametrics in fall 2003. Line 86 of wilcox.test.R achieved.alpha<-2*psignrank(trunc(qu),n) It should be achieved.alpha<-2*psignrank(trunc(qu)-1,n) If you don't see why, decode the cookbook instructions p. 56 in Hollander and Wolfe (2nd ed.) or see

Does anyone know why wilcox.exact gives W-statistic 6 instead of 12 as indicated below. 12 is the rank sum of group 0 of x, which is the linear statistic computed by wilcox_test. y<-c(1,2,3,4,5) x<-c(1,1,0,0,0) (a) wilcox.exact wilcox.exact(y~x) Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test data: y by x W = 6, p-value = 0.2 alternative hypothesis: true mu is not equal to 0 (b) wilcox_test

This is my first post to the mailing list and I guess it's a pretty stupid question but I can't figure it out. I hope this is the right forum for these kind of questions. Before I started using R I was using STATA to run a Wilcoxon signed-rank test on two variables. See data below:

On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 13:57:26 -0600 Sergei Gerasenko <gerases at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Rowland, > > Thanks for taking the time to look at this. I will post the log 10 > output a bit later. Btw, what logs with log level 10 are you > interested in? > > Here’s my samba config with sensitive info replaced with placeholders: > > [global] > access based share enum

On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:35:08 -0600 Sergei Gerasenko <sgerasenko74 at gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, reviewing the configs I posted before, I screwed up big time by > posting the example share config into the global config. So sorry > about that. > > Here's the more accurate configuration > > 1. /etc/samba/smb.conf > ======================= > > [global] > log

hi, folks, how have you gone about reporting a p-value from a test when the returned value from a test (in this case a rank-sum test) is numerically equal to 0 according to the machine? the next lowest value greater than zero that is distinct from zero on the machine is likely algorithm-dependent (the algorithm of the test itself), but without knowing the explicit steps of the algorithm

Yes On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Rowland Penny via samba < samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:35:08 -0600 > Sergei Gerasenko <sgerasenko74 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Ok, reviewing the configs I posted before, I screwed up big time by > > posting the example share config into the global config. So sorry > > about that. > > >

The point estimates produced by wilcox.test are perverse (not wrong, just brain damaged). The Hodges-Lehmann estimator that goes with the signed rank test is the median of the Walsh averages. The Hodges-Lehmann estimator that goes with the rank sum test is the median of the pairwise differences. wilcox.test agrees except that it uses the following very peculiar definition of "sample

Hi, I'm hoping somebody can point me in the right direction. My samba version is samba-4.2.10-6.2.el7_2.x86_64. I have lots of daily core dumps (~20 on each machine daily) and I have no clear idea why. I'm including the stack trace below. It looks like the problem is related to "invalid lock_order". Any ideas? Thanks, Sergei #0 0x00007fc5a34945f7 in raise () from

Sorry if this sounds cynical, ( i do love script.aculo.us scripts ) , but I am wondering if people know of some good real world examples of uses of drag n drop and sortable lists. such a cute script will likely be *ab*used as much as it is used. obviously the point here is to use script.aculo.us to improve the user interface rather than just have some k00l eFX. e.g. the drag n drop instantly

Hello, Writing to share some things I've found about wilcox.test() that seem a a bit inconsistent. 1. Inf values are not removed if paired=TRUE # returns different results (Inf is removed): wilcox.test(c(1,2,3,4), c(0,9,8,7)) wilcox.test(c(1,2,3,4), c(0,9,8,Inf)) # returns the same result (Inf is left as value with highest rank): wilcox.test(c(1,2,3,4), c(0,9,8,7), paired=TRUE)