thanks so much! that seems to have done the trick,
emily
On 6/4/07, Doug Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, it did fall thru the cr cks. Can you try running it with
--no-adjust? When you give it a sign (ie, --pos), it assumes that the input
values and threshold are -log10(p) and then adj
Sorry, it did fall thru the cr cks. Can you try running it with
--no-adjust? When you give it a sign (ie, --pos), it assumes that the
input values and threshold are -log10(p) and then adjusts the threshold
for a single-tailed (signed) test, which means that it subtracts
log10(2) = 0.3 from th
hi,
sorry to bother the mailinglist again, but i haven't received a response to
this question. i just wanted to make sure that it hadn't slipped through the
cracks. any help would be very much appreciated,
emily
On 6/1/07, Emily Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hi,
i am having a strange pro
