similar to: (no subject)

Hi everyone, I'm using the function 'HWE.exact' of 'genetics' package to compute p-values of the HWE test. My data set consists of ~600 subjects (cases and controls) typed at ~ 10K SNP markers; the test is applied separately to cases and controls. The genotypes are stored in a list of 'genotype' objects, all.geno, and p-values are calculated inside the loop over all

Hi, I am attempting to use phyper to test the significance of two overlapping lists. I keep getting a zero and wondered if that was determining non-significance of my overlap or a p-value too small to calculate? overlap = 524 lista = 2784 totalpop = 54675 listb = 1296 phyper(overlap, lista, totalpop, listb,lower.tail = FALSE, log.p=F) [1] 0 If I plug in some different values I get a p-value but

Dear All I have a question about the hypergeomteric distribution. Example 1: I have a universe of 6187 objects, and 164 have a particular attribute, therefore 6187-164 do not have that attribute. I sample 249 of those objects, and find that 19 have that attribute. I get a p-value here (looking at just over-representation): phyper(19, 164, 6187-164, 249, lower.tail=FALSE) [1] 7.816235e-06

Hello, I've come across the following situation in R-1.8.1 (compile + running under RedHat 7.1): > phyper(24, 514, 5961-514, 53, lower.tail=T) [1] 1 > phyper(24, 514, 5961-514, 53, lower.tail=F) [1] -1.037310e-11 I'd expect the later to be 0 or some very small positive number. Is this a number under-flow of the calculation? Do you think I'm safe if I just set the result to 0

Dear R-users, In R 2.5.1 on Windows XP, SP2 the call to phyper(0,0,74,3,lower.tail=FALSE) returns -4.195862e-17. This does not happen with R2.5.1 on Linux, 0 is returned. Is this a bug (and should be reported as such), since phyper should not return negative values, or is this considered as one of the annoyances of finite precision arithmetic. I tend to think of this as a bug since it breaks the

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: >> Inviting Paul to the party (he wrote the libstdc++ sort checker). >> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 01/13/2016

Aloha all, I know too little about what I'm about to write and hope I'm not wasting your time. For a class I'm teaching in archaeological data analysis, I'm trying to put together a routine that calculates the so-called Petersen index and, especially, confidence intervals for the index. This was introduced to archaeologists by N.R.J. Fieller and A. Turner in an article

Full_Name: Utz J. Pape Version: 2.2.0 OS: linux Submission from: (NULL) (141.14.23.12) If I use phyper and set parameter x equal to k (meaning that all balls I draw are white) phyper returns 1 which is not (always) correct: pape at xxx:~> R2.2.0 --vanilla R : Copyright 2005, The R Foundation for Statistical Computing Version 2.2.0 (2005-10-06 r35749) ISBN 3-900051-07-0 R is free software

Hello! I use R-version 1.0.0 To get the 0.95 quantile of the hypergeometric distribution with the parameters m=45000,n=5000 and k=600 I use the R-command > qhyper(0.95,45000,5000,600). The value obtained is 600. However, the true value is 552. The latter can be obtained for example by calling the corresponding distribution function with the R commands > x<-540:580 >

Hi all, I have tried to compute a p-value for a hypergeometric distribution as: dhyper(x,k,l,n) + phyper(x,k,l,n,lower.tail=FALSE) and sometimes obtained negative values. Do you know if it is because a round error or am I doing something wrong? Thanks in advance, Aurora

Dear R team, I have a simple question. I tried this command: phyper(17,449,19551,181, FALSE) [1] 1.47295e-07 and then I tried this command: (fisher.test(matrix(c(17,449,181,19551),2,2), alternative='greater'))$p.value [1] 3.693347e-06 Shouldn't be identical the results of the two commands ? What is the difference ? Thx a lot -- View this message in context:

> Dear R-users! > > I am using R 1.0.0 and Windows NT 4.0. > Suppose I have a population of N=100 subjects, a binomial variable and a random sample of n=20 subjects from my population, giving 15 "successes". I am interested in obtaining a confidence interval for the proportion of "successes" in my population. In R, I can use > library(ctest) >

Full_Name: Anja von Heydebreck Version: 1.9.1 OS: Linux Submission from: (NULL) (155.250.128.25) I obtained a negative p-value from the fisher.test() function: > fisher.test(matrix(c(14576,3023,89,68),2), alternative="g")$p.value [1] -8.426593e-13 With R 1.8.1, I got a p-value of -6.239231e-12 for this example. Anja von Heydebreck

Dear R Users, I employed the phyper() function to estimate the likelihood that the number of genes overlapping between 2 different lists of genes is due to chance. This appears to work appropriately. Now i want to try this with 3 lists of genes which phyper() does not appear to support. Some googling suggests i can utilize the Multivariate hypergeometric distribution to achieve this. eg.:

Hi Developers, The alpha, compiles successfully, but it is failing make check-all (on two seperate machines, both FreeBSD 6.1). Here is the version string: platform i386-unknown-freebsd6.1 arch i386 os freebsd6.1 system i386, freebsd6.1 status alpha major 2 minor 3.0 year 2006 month 03 day 27 svn rev

Hi, set.seed(45) test1<-data.frame(columnA=rnorm(7,45),columnB=rnorm(7,10)) #used an example probably similar to your actual data apply(test1,2,function(x) sprintf("%.1f",median(x))) #columnA columnB # "44.5"? "10.2" par(mfrow=c(1,2)) lapply(test1,function(x) {b<-

There is a problem with `rpois'. It does seem to take care about the order of the arguments. This is an example: > rpois(n=1,lambda=2) [1] 3 > rpois(lambda=2,n=1) [1] 2 0 It obviously uses the first argument as the number of samples to be drawn, which is wrong. I used Version 0.49 Beta (April 23, 1997). Fredrik

There is a problem with `rpois'. It does seem to take care about the order of the arguments. This is an example: > rpois(n=1,lambda=2) [1] 3 > rpois(lambda=2,n=1) [1] 2 0 It obviously uses the first argument as the number of samples to be drawn, which is wrong. I used Version 0.49 Beta (April 23, 1997). Fredrik

I'm using fisher.exact on a 4x2 table and it seems to work. Does anyone know exactly what is going on? I thought fisher.exact is only for 2x2 tables. Note: I can't use chi-squared because I have a couple of cells with 0 and < 5 observations. -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/fisher-exact-for-2x2-table-tp3481979p3481979.html Sent from the R help

Inviting Paul to the party (he wrote the libstdc++ sort checker <https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/google/gcc-4_9/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h> ). On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> wrote: > On 01/13/2016 10:08 AM, Yury Gribov wrote: > >> On 01/13/2016 09:57 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 12,