, 7 Feb 2008 13:04:58 -0800
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Rd] pnorm
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, jing hua zhao wrote:
> >
> > I calculated a two-sided p values according to 2*(1-pnorm(8.104474)),
> > which
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, jing hua zhao wrote:
>
> I calculated a two-sided p values according to 2*(1-pnorm(8.104474)),
> which gives 4.440892e-16. However, it appears to be 5.30E-16 by a
> colleague and 5.2974E-16 from SAS. I tried to get around with mvtnorm
> package but it turns out to be using pn
IL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 6:00 PM
Subject: [Rd] pnorm
>
> Dear R list,
>
> I calculated a two-sided p values according to
> 2*(1-pnorm(8.104474)), which gives 4.440892e-16. However, it
> appears to be 5.30E-16 by a colleague and 5.2974E-16 from SAS. I
On 2/7/2008 12:00 PM, jing hua zhao wrote:
> Dear R list,
>
> I calculated a two-sided p values according to 2*(1-pnorm(8.104474)), which
> gives 4.440892e-16. However, it appears to be 5.30E-16 by a colleague and
> 5.2974E-16 from SAS. I tried to get around with mvtnorm package but it turns
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, jing hua zhao wrote:
>
> Dear R list,
>
> I calculated a two-sided p values according to 2*(1-pnorm(8.104474)),
> which gives 4.440892e-16. However, it appears to be 5.30E-16 by a
> colleague and 5.2974E-16 from SAS. I tried to get around with mvtnorm
> package but it turns
I guess that you destroy the accuracy of the calculation by the
subtraction. Try
2*(pnorm(8.104474,lower=FALSE))
instead, which results in
5.29742e-16
for me.
Regards,
Martin
jing hua zhao schrieb:
> Dear R list,
>
> I calculated a two-sided p values according to 2*(1-pnorm(8.104474)), w
Dear R list,
I calculated a two-sided p values according to 2*(1-pnorm(8.104474)), which
gives 4.440892e-16. However, it appears to be 5.30E-16 by a colleague and
5.2974E-16 from SAS. I tried to get around with mvtnorm package but it turns
out to be using pnorm for univariate case. I should
