similar to: Setting up hypothesis tests with the infer library?

How about calculating a 95% confidence interval about the estimated proportion in favor. The PooledInfRate package will do this for you. If confidence intervals overlap then there is no significant difference. -----Original Message----- From: R-help <r-help-bounces at r-project.org> On Behalf Of Kevin Zembower via R-help Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2025 12:10 PM To: R-help email list

Hi, Rui and Michael, thank you both for replying. Yeah, I'm not supposed to know about Chi-squared yet. So far, all of our work with hypothesis tests has involved creating the sample data, then resampling it to create a null distribution, and finally computing p-values. The prop.test() would work. obviously. I'll look into that. I didn't know about it. I'm really struck by the

Hello, all, We're now starting to cover hypothesis tests in my Stats 101 course. As usual in courses using the Lock5 textbook, 3rd ed., the homework answers are calculated using their StatKey application. In addition (and for no extra credit), I'm trying to solve the problems using R. In the case of hypothesis test, in addition to manually setting up randomized null hypothesis

Hello, I am working on some examples of GLMM for my students but I am afraid that my way of preparing a dataframe to pass to lmer will make them think that R is a very difficult and un-natural language. Here is for example a simple data set about approval ratings on two different surveys for a random sample of 1600 individuals. > ## Example: Ratings of prime minister (Agresti, Table 12.1,

Hello, I posted a question yesterday but I got no replies, so I'll try to reformulate it in a more concise way. I have the following data, summarizing approval ratings on two different surveys for a random sample of 1600 individuals: > ## Example: Ratings of prime minister (Agresti, Table 12.1, p.494) > rating <- matrix(c(794, 86, 150, 570), 2, 2) > dimnames(rating) <-

Dear R-Help group: I have been tinkering with how I want my personal standard library functions to look like. They are not designed to be professional and heavyweight, but lightweight. There are probably dozens of little bugs, because I don't know or have not properly taken care of a variety of internal R code issues. still, I like how this ended up, and there is no learning curve, so I

Dear list, I have data like this: dat1 <- data.frame(subject=rep(1:10,2), cond1=rep(c("A","B"),each=5), cond2=rep(c("C","D"),each=10), choice=sample(0:1,10,replace=TRUE)) I would like to compare subjects' "choice" for (cond1=="A" & cond2=="C") vs

Is this how a t hypothesis test is done when I don't have the actual data, but just the summarized statistics: > #Homework 9.2.6 [1] > n<-31 > xbar<-3.10 > s_x<-1.469 > m<-57 > ybar<-2.43 > s_y<-1.35 > s_pooled<- (((n-1)*s_x^2) + ((m-1)*s_y^2)) / (n + m - 2) > s_pooled [1] 1.939521 > t_obs <- (xbar - ybar) / (s_pooled * (sqrt(1/n + 1/m)))

In August I reported a problem with the sys_ftruncate call that caused me to reboot my machine. I didn't see any responses to it then on the ext3 list, and the problem is now recurring, so I thought I'd try again. I don't think I've rebooted since the last problem. In the last few days it hasn't taken as long as 17 hours, but it has sometimes taken unusual and uncomfortable

In light of recent flame baits and advertisements sent to the list, I would like to seek opinions of list members on making the list moderated. I certainly don't have time to moderate the list myself, so I would suggest giving at least a half dozen, maybe more, people the ability to approve posts to keep it flowing quickly. Moderators would be asked just to approve/disapprove based upon a

Hello everyone,           I have a basic question regarding logical operators. > x<-seq(-1,1,by=0.02) > x   [1] -1.00 -0.98 -0.96 -0.94 -0.92 -0.90 -0.88 -0.86 -0.84 -0.82 -0.80 -0.78  [13] -0.76 -0.74 -0.72 -0.70 -0.68 -0.66 -0.64 -0.62 -0.60 -0.58 -0.56 -0.54  [25] -0.52 -0.50 -0.48 -0.46 -0.44 -0.42 -0.40 -0.38 -0.36 -0.34 -0.32 -0.30  [37] -0.28 -0.26 -0.24 -0.22 -0.20 -0.18 -0.16

Several times recently my "mutt" email program has looped for hours at a time in the middle of a sys_ftruncate call. This happens when I use the "$" command to write changes out to my mailbox. It does eventually return from the call and everything seems to have worked ok. But in the meantime the CPU is pegged, $MAIL is locked so I can't receive new mail, and signals to

Ulrich offered to do it instead since I expect he can get it done much faster than me. Instead I'm doing SIToFP and UIToFP. Ulrich said he wasn't going to be able to get to it for a couple of weeks, but that was a week or two ago. Ulrich? -----Original Message----- From: Cameron McInally <cameron.mcinally at nyu.edu> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 10:21 AM To: Kristof Beyls

I have a problem with R. I try to compute the confidence interval for my df. When I want to create the plot I have this problem: Error in xy.coords(x, y, xlabel, ylabel, log) : 'x' and 'y' lengths differ. I try this code: library(dplR) df.rwi <- detrend(rwl = df, method = "Spline",nyrs=NULL) write.table(df.rwi,file="rwi.txt",quote=FALSE,row.names=TRUE)

Which exactly was the plan? Add a new, regular instruction? Add a new constrained math intrinsic? Both? Andrew Kaylor made a good point here: * As I said, all LLVM IR FP instructions are //assumed// to have no side effects. I'm not sure we want an instruction that goes beyond this to be //defined// as having no side effects. It adds a complication to the language and introduces

I have no example side effects in hand. But LLVM targets a bunch of architectures, and who knows what the future holds. So it may be prudent to not promise too much so as to leave ourselves an escape hatch. Doesn’t LLVM target some chips that have floating point instruction sets that are not IEEE compliant? Can we be certain that no new LLVM target will ever have to jump through hoops to avoid

I believe I have a config problem, but let me first explain what I'm trying to accomplish and then I'll dump all the logs, etc. w2k3 r2 domain server: hilbert.math.purdue.edu samba server: gram.math.purdue.edu realm: MATH.PURDUE.EDU domain: MATH Currently my entire environment is all Solaris, with users stored in LDAP and home directories shared via NFS. I am using Sun's Identity

Well, yes, they are different operations. And, yes, this needs to be corrected. This wasn’t my point. It’s a given. I was getting at the _declared_ absence of side effects and what promises we make to anyone using the new fneg instruction. Is this a promise we want to make? From: Cameron McInally <cameron.mcinally at nyu.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 2:30 PM To: Kevin Neal

> > > > > > > I guess I could write an initial protocol specification - but it would > > > not be complete and I wouldn't be able to relicense my library to > > > LGPL anyway. > > > > > > So I guess I have convinced myself that it is not worth the effort > > > trying. Time is probably better spent coding ;) And that's OK

On 5/23/06, Michael Kiermaier <michael.kiermaier@gmx.net> wrote: > On Sunday 21 May 2006 23:31, Neal B. wrote: > > A picture is worth 1000 words, so here is a screenshot: > > > > http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/2783/fplayshot4yy.png > > Hi Neal, > > currently I am looking for a flac-player on Linux that understands internal > cue-sheets. So I am very