similar to: Confidence interval calculation in prop.test (PR#9325)

The confidence interval calculation in prop.test appears to be incorrect when alternative="greater". The upper limit is always set to 1.000. Am I missing something? > total=c(250,250) > success=c(55,31) > prop.test(success,total,alternative="greater",correct=TRUE) 2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction data: success out of

Hi r-users,   I would like to extract the data that match.  Attached is my data: I'm interested in matchind the value in column 'intg' with value in column 'rand_no' > cbind(z=z,intg=dd,rand_no = rr)             z  intg rand_no    [1,]  0.00 0.000   0.001    [2,]  0.01 0.000   0.002    [3,]  0.02 0.000   0.002    [4,]  0.03 0.000   0.003    [5,]  0.04 0.000   0.003    [6,] 

Hi R users: What is the difference between in the computation of the diag of the "hat" matrix in: "lm.influence" and the matrix operations with "solve()" and "t()"? I mean, this is my X matrix x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 [1,] 0.297 0.310 0.290 0.220 0.1560 [2,] 0.360 0.390 0.369 0.297 0.2050 [3,] 0.075 0.058 0.047 0.034 0.0230 [4,] 0.114 0.100

Hello, is there anyone who has some ideas about the problem I posted? Help! [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Dear R-help, > prop.test(9, 137, p=0.066) > prop.test(9, 137, p=0.05) give two different 95% confidence intervals. I thought the confidence interval calculation should be independent of testing calculations (and thus the null hypothesis)? Splus 2000 has similar problems but give slightly different answer. Using R1.3.0 on windows. Mai Zhou

Hi, This code: n=40 x=17 phat=x/n SE=sqrt(phat*(1-phat)/n) zstar=qnorm(0.995) E=zstar*SE phat+c(-E,E) Gives this result: [1] 0.2236668 0.6263332 The TI Graphing calculator gives the same result. Whereas this test: prop.test(x,n,conf.level=0.99,correct=FALSE) Give this result: 0.2489036 0.6224374 I'm wondering why there is a difference. D. -- View this message in context:

Dear R-helpers, Using the package Lattice, I performed a PCA. For example pca.summary <- summary(pc.cr <- princomp(USArrests, cor = TRUE)) The Output of "pca.summary" looks as follows: Importance of components: Comp.1 Comp.2 Comp.3 Comp.4 Standard deviation 1.5748783 0.9948694 0.5971291 0.41644938 Proportion of Variance 0.6200604

Hello, Does anyone know which method from Newcombe (1998)* is implemented in prop.test for comparing two proportions? I would guess it is the method based on the Wilson score (for single proportion), with and without continuity correction for prop.test(..., correct=FALSE) and prop.test(..., correct=TRUE). These methods would correspond to no. 10 and 11 tested in Newcombe, respectively. Can

Dear list members, I want to perform in R the analysis "simultaneous confidence interval for multiple proportions", as illustrated in the article of Agresti et al. (2008) "Simultaneous confidence intervals for comparing binomial parameter", Biometrics 64, 1270-1275. If I am not wrong the R function implementing the Agresti et al. method is prop.test(). I ask an help because I

We are two french students and we have a problem concerning an exercize. We don't know how to resolve it. It would be fantastic if someone can help us. Thanks. Description: This study examined how the metabolic cost of locomotion varied with speed, stride frequency and body mass. Cost was determined by measuring oxygen consumption (?vo2?), analyzing the oxygen content in air inhaled and

Dear Josh, Thanks for your help! Does your answer mean, that you agree the two methods should do the same, and what I was guessing, despite the small differences? What I prefer about ci.pd is, that the help clearly says which method is implemented, which is not the case for prop.test. But I do not know who has programmed the function. Best wishes Steffi Stefanie von Felten, PhD Statistician

Well pointed out, Jim! It is infortunate that the documentation for options(digits=...) does not mention that these are *significant digits* and not *decimal places* (which is what Joshua seems to want): "?digits?: controls the number of digits to print when printing numeric values." On the face of it, printing the value "0,517" of 'ccc' looks like printing 4

>>>>> Ted Harding >>>>> on Thu, 31 May 2018 07:10:32 +0100 writes: > Well pointed out, Jim! > It is infortunate that the documentation for options(digits=...) > does not mention that these are *significant digits* > and not *decimal places* (which is what Joshua seems to want): Since R 3.4.0 the help on ?options *does* say

Hi R users, I need some help in the followings: I'm doing factor analysis and I need to extract the loading values and the Proportion Var and Cumulative Var values one by one. Here is what I am doing: > fact <- factanal(na.omit(gnome_freq_r2),factors=5); > fact$loadings Loadings: Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Factor5 b1freqr2 0.246 0.486 0.145

Hello, I am trying to filter a data set like below so that the peaks in the Phase value are more obvious and can be identified by a peak finding function following the useful advise of Carl Witthoft. I have written the following for(i in length(data$Phase)){ newphase=if(abs(data$Phase[i+1]-data$Phase[i])>6){ data$Phase[i+1] }else{data$Phase[i] } } I get the following error which I have not

Hi Joshua, Because there are no values in column ddd less than 1. itemInfo[3,"ddd"]<-0.3645372 itemInfo aaa bbb ccc ddd eee skill 1.396 6.225 0.517 5.775 2.497 predict 1.326 5.230 0.462 5.116 -2.673 waiting 1.117 4.948 NA 0.365 NA complex 1.237 4.170 0.220 4.713 5.642 novelty 1.054 4.005 0.442 4.260 2.076 creative 1.031 3.561 0.362 3.689

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 12:54:47AM -0500, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Ville Syrjala > > <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote: > >> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> > >> > >> Replace the ad-hoc iturbt_709

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote: > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> > > Replace the ad-hoc iturbt_709 property with the new standard > COLOR_ENCODING property. Compiles, but not tested. > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> > Cc: nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org > Cc: Ben

Hi wxRuby Gurus, I''m trying to write a sample program which allows me to drag an image (by left_mouse_button down) across the canvas. I got it to work ... well, sort of. The problem is I can drag it only by clicking on the left top corner of the image and nowhere else. Besides, the dragging is not very smooth. How can I make it better? I am using wxRuby 0.6.0 on Win XP (Home) and

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Ville Syrjala > <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote: >> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> >> >> Replace the ad-hoc iturbt_709 property with the new standard >> COLOR_ENCODING property. Compiles, but not tested.