similar to: two-tailed exact binomail test

Hi Folks, The recent correspondence about "strange fisher.test result", and especially Peter Dalgaard's reply on Tue 03 April 2007 (which I want to investigate further) led me to take a close look at the code for binom.test(). I now have a query! The code for the two-sided case computes the p-value as follows: if (p == 0) (x == 0) else if (p == 1) (x == n)

Dear all Just for fun, I have just downloaded the paper mentioned below and checked it with R-1.6.1. Everything is ok with exception of Table 2b, where I get always 1 instead of 0.5: > pbinom(1e15,2e15,0.5) [1] 1 Which value should be correct? Best regards Christian Stratowa ============================================== Christian Stratowa, PhD Boehringer Ingelheim Austria Dept NCE Lead

Full_Name: Chanseok Park Version: R 2.2.1 OS: RedHat EL4 Submission from: (NULL) (130.127.112.89) pbinom(any negative value, size, prob) should be zero. But I got the following results. I mean, if a negative value is close to zero, then pbinom() calculate pbinom(0, size, prob). dbinom() also behaves similarly. > pbinom( -2.220446e-22, 3,.1) [1] 0.729 > pbinom( -2.220446e-8, 3,.1)

Dear R Users, Is the p-value reported in a two-tailed binomial exact test in error or is it a feature? If it is a feature, could someone provide a reference for its two-tailed p-value computations? Using Blaker's (2000 - Canad. J. Statist 28: 783-798) approach,the p-value is the minimum of the two-tailed probabilities $P \left(Y\geq y_{obs}\right)$ and $P\left(Y\leq y_{obs}\right)$

Dear R users, I’m performing some GLMMs analysis with a negative binomial link. I already performed such analysis some months ago with the lmer() function but when I tried it today I encountered this problem: *Erreur dans famType(glmFit$family) : unknown GLM family: ‘Negative Binomial’* Does anyone know if the negative binomial family has been removed from this function? I really appreciate any

n_10;p_0.5;jjx_0:n;qbinom(pbinom(jjx,n,p),n,p) # This one works as expected n_100;p_0.5;jjx_0:n;qbinom(pbinom(jjx,n,p),n,p) # This one causes severe problems I cannot interrupt using ESC and I finally have to resort to the Windows Task manager to kill the R session. A friend of mine told me that he faced similar problems under Unix. --please do not edit the information below-- Version:

Hi all, I am wondering whether there is a small bug in the binom.test function of the ctest library (I'm using R 1.6.0 on windows 2000, but Splus 2000 seems to have the same behaviour). Or perhaps I've misunderstood something. the command binom.test(11,100,p=0.1) and binom.test(9,100,p=0.1) give different p-values (see below). As 9 and 11 are equidistant from 10, the mean of the

Full_Name: Uffe H?gsbro Thygesen Version: 2.2.0 OS: linux Submission from: (NULL) (130.226.135.250) Hello all. pbinom(q=0,size=0,prob=0.5) returns the value NaN. I had expected the result 1. In fact any value for q seems to give an NaN. Note that dbinom(x=0,size=0,prob=0.5) returns the value 1. Cheers, Uffe

Dear People, I'm trying to use the function adapt, from the adapt library package, which does multidimensional numerical integration. I think I must be using the wrong syntax or something, because even a simple example does not work. Consider foo <- function(x){x[1]*x[2]} and adapt(2, lo = c(-1,-1), up = c(1,1), functn = foo) This simply hangs. A more complicated example crashes R,

R-listers, In using the adapt function, I am getting the following warning: Ifail=2, lenwrk was too small. -- fix adapt() ! Check the returned relerr! in: adapt(ndim = 2, lower = lower.limit, upper = upper.limit, functn = pr.set, Would someone explain what the 'lenwrk' value indicates in order to help diagnose this issue. Also, what are the possible codes for Ifail, so I can set

Can anyone please tell me if there is a function to calculate confidence intervals for the results of the quantile function. Some of my data is normally distributed but some is also a squewed distribution or a capped normal distribution. Some of the data sets contain about 700 values whereas others are smaller with about 100-150 values, so I would like to see how the confidence intervals change

Hi all, I'm working to apply a function that will generate a matrix of results only when a specific criteria is met. I want my final results to be a matrix with both the values that meet the criteria (the results of the function), and those that to do in the same positions in the matrix (the original numbers). Here's a sample of what I would like to do: t.mean.1.c <- c(-15, -20,

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

Full_Name: Wolfgang Resch Version: R 2.8.1 GUI 1.27 OS: OS X 10.4.11 Submission from: (NULL) (137.187.89.14) Strange behavior of qbinom: > qbinom(0.01, 5016279, 1e-07) [1] 0 > qbinom(0.01, 5016279, 2e-07) [1] 16 > qbinom(0.01, 5016279, 3e-07) [1] 16 > qbinom(0.01, 5016279, 4e-07) [1] 16 > qbinom(0.01, 5016279, 5e-07) [1] 0

Hi all I was wondering if someone could help me. I have to estimate some parameters, so I am using the function nlm. Inside this function I have to integrate, hence I am using the function adapt. I don't understand why it is giving the following warnings: At the beginning: Warning: a final empty element has been omitted the part of the args list of 'c' being evaluated was:

Dear R users, I?m trying to optimize simultaneously two binomials inequalities (used in acceptance sampling) which are nonlinear solution, so there is no simple direct solution. Please, let me explain shortly the the problem and the question as following. The objective is to obtain the smallest value of 'n' (sample size) satisfying both inequalities: (1-alpha) <= pbinom(c, n, p1)

Hi, I would have thought that these two constructions would produce the same result but they do not. Resp <- rbinom(10, 1, 0.5) Stim <- rep(0:1, 5) mm <- model.matrix(~ Stim) Xb <- mm %*% c(0, 1) ifelse(Resp, log(pnorm(Xb)), log(1 - pnorm(Xb))) pnorm(as.vector(Xb), lower.tail = Resp, log.p = TRUE) > ifelse(Resp, log(pnorm(Xb)), log(1 - pnorm(Xb))) [1] -0.6931472 -1.8410216

Hello all, I am trying to understand the different results I am getting from the following 3 commands: chisq.test(c(62,50), p = c(0.512,1-0.512), correct = F) # p-value = 0.3788 binom.test(x=62,n=112, p= 0.512) # p-value = 0.3961 2*(1-pbinom(62,112, .512)) # p-value = 0.329 Well, the binom.test was supposed to be "exact" and give the same results as the pbinom, while the chisq.test

I'm trying to compute sample size requirements for a binomial exact test. we want to show that the proportion is at least 90% assuming that it is 95%, with 80% power so any asymptotic approximations are out of the questions. I was planning on using binom.test to perform the simple test against a prespecified value, but cannot find any functions for computing sample size. do any exist?