Re: [R] Shapiro-Wilk normality test

Dear Kewin, this is just my issue. Take a look at this I have skewness = 0.16 and kurtosis = 3.3 ... This one seem to me normally distribued but both Shapiro-Wilk and Jarque-Bera test make me refuse null hypotesis of normality -- View

Re: [R] Shapiro-Wilk normality test

my knowledge of statistical is not minimal .. i was just a little bit confused because on wikipedia i read that the value of SW test 0 < w < 1. When w is very little then you're supposed to refuse null hypotesis. So in this case, considering the value of w i should accept null hypotesis, but p-val

Re: [R] Shapiro-Wilk normality test

I agree with Bert about tests of normality. See: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7781798/seeing-if-data-is-normally-distributed-in-r Kevin On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Bert Gunter wrote: > 1. Is this homework? > 2. This is not an R question. Post to a statistical list list > stats.stac

Re: [R] Shapiro-Wilk normality test

1. Is this homework? 2. This is not an R question. Post to a statistical list list stats.stackexchange.com for such questions. 3. If this is not homework, I suggest you consult a local statistical expert, as your statistics knowledge appears minimal. 4. No variable is **ever** normally distributed.

[R] Shapiro-Wilk normality test

If I get this value of SW test is variable resid(lr3) normal distributed? Shapiro-Wilk normality test data: sample(resid(lr3), 5000, replace = T) W = 0.9953, p-value = 1.355e-11 -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/Shapiro-Wilk-normality-test-tp4648236.html Sent fr

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

This one should (I am tempted to write "must") make its way to fortune ()... Thankyouthankyouthankyou ... Emmanuel Charpentier On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:58:13 -0600, Greg Snow wrote : > For those people who feel the need for a p-value to test normality on >

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

gt; lautloscrew.com > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 10:20 AM > To: Mark Leeds > Cc: r-help@r-project.org > Subject: Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test > > Hmm thanks, > But on the other hand it just says i cant reject normality, > which doesnt really mean it is normal. W

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

See at end. On 13-Jul-08 21:42:19, Johannes Huesing wrote: > Ted Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at > 10:59:21PM CEST]: >> On 13-Jul-08 19:53:47, Johannes Huesing wrote: >> > Frank E Harrell Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at >> > 08:07:37PM CEST]: >> >> (Ted Harding) wrot

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

Ted Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:59:21PM CEST]: > On 13-Jul-08 19:53:47, Johannes Huesing wrote: > > Frank E Harrell Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at > > 08:07:37PM CEST]: > >> (Ted Harding) wrote: > >>> On 13-Jul-08 13:29:13, Frank E Harrell Jr wrote: > [..

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

On 13-Jul-08 19:53:47, Johannes Huesing wrote: > Frank E Harrell Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at > 08:07:37PM CEST]: >> (Ted Harding) wrote: >>> On 13-Jul-08 13:29:13, Frank E Harrell Jr wrote: [...] A large P-value means nothing more than needing more data. No conclu

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

Frank E Harrell Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 08:07:37PM CEST]: > (Ted Harding) wrote: >> On 13-Jul-08 13:29:13, Frank E Harrell Jr wrote: >>> [...] >>> A large P-value means nothing more than needing more data. No >>> conclusion is possible. Please read the classic paper Absence

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

(Ted Harding) wrote: On 13-Jul-08 13:29:13, Frank E Harrell Jr wrote: [...] A large P-value means nothing more than needing more data. No conclusion is possible. Please read the classic paper Absence of Evidence is not Evidence for Absence. Is that ironic, Frank, or is there really a "clas

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

Many thanks to Berwin, and also to Charles Annis, for the references. The're good! Ted. On 13-Jul-08 15:22:03, Berwin A Turlach wrote: > G'day all, > > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:55:38 +0100 (BST) > (Ted Harding) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 13-Jul-08 13:29:13, Frank E Harrell Jr wrote: >> > [

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

G'day all, On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:55:38 +0100 (BST) (Ted Harding) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 13-Jul-08 13:29:13, Frank E Harrell Jr wrote: > > [...] > > A large P-value means nothing more than needing more data. No > > conclusion is possible. I would have thought that "we need more data

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

, 2008 10:56 AM To: Frank E Harrell Jr Cc: r-help@r-project.org Subject: Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test On 13-Jul-08 13:29:13, Frank E Harrell Jr wrote: > [...] > A large P-value means nothing more than needing more data. No > conclusion is possible. Please read the classic paper A

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

On 13-Jul-08 13:29:13, Frank E Harrell Jr wrote: > [...] > A large P-value means nothing more than needing more data. No > conclusion is possible. Please read the classic paper Absence of > Evidence is not Evidence for Absence. Is that ironic, Frank, or is there really a "classic paper" with t

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: r-help@r-project.org Inviato: Domenica 13 luglio 2008, 7:27:43 Oggetto: Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test You may consider the nortest package. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nortest/index.html Regards, CH On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Bunny, lautloscr

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

vs H1: not normal So shapiro.wilk test is saying that your data are normal and it's correct! Bye Marta - Messaggio originale - Da: C.H. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A: "Bunny, lautloscrew.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: r-help@r-project.org Inviato: Domenica 13 luglio 2008, 7:27:

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

You may consider the nortest package. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nortest/index.html Regards, CH On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Bunny, lautloscrew.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi everybody, > > somehow i dont get the shapiro wilk test for normality. i just can´t find > what th

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

At 12:48 PM 7/12/2008, Bunny, lautloscrew.com wrote: first of all thanks yall. it´s always good to get it from people that know for sure. my bad, i meant to say it´s compatible with normality. i just wanted to know if it wouldnt be better to test for non-normality in order to know for "sure". an

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

Original Message- From: Bunny, lautloscrew.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 12:20 PM To: Mark Leeds Cc: r-help@r-project.org Subject: Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test Hmm thanks, But on the other hand it just says i cant reject normality, which doesnt real

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

al Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of Bunny, lautloscrew.com Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 11:30 AM To: r-help@r-project.org Subject: [R] shapiro wilk normality test Hi everybody, somehow i dont get the shapiro wilk test for normality. i just can´t find w

Re: [R] shapiro wilk normality test

At 11:30 AM 7/12/2008, Bunny, lautloscrew.com wrote: Hi everybody, somehow i dont get the shapiro wilk test for normality. i just can´t find what the H0 is . i tried : shapiro.test(rnorm(5000)) Shapiro-Wilk normality test data: rnorm(5000) W = 0.9997, p-value = 0.6205 If normalit

[R] shapiro wilk normality test

Hi everybody, somehow i dont get the shapiro wilk test for normality. i just can´t find what the H0 is . i tried : shapiro.test(rnorm(5000)) Shapiro-Wilk normality test data: rnorm(5000) W = 0.9997, p-value = 0.6205 If normality is the H0, the test says it´s probably not normal