Dear Mr or Ms genecleaner, I think you will find that Daniel's suggested explanation, the use of a normal approximation, fits well with your observation regarding the "exact" option. So I cannot see why you feel bullied, I found the replies that you received from the list topical and helpful.
Sincerely, David. PS: From the manual page "?wilcox.test" " By default (if 'exact' is not specified), an exact p-value is computed if the samples contain less than 50 finite values and there are no ties. Otherwise, a normal approximation is used." On 15 June 2011 00:26, genecleaner <geneclea...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Daniel and Sarah, > > Thanks you for your rude replies . > The script that I provided was only an example and to illustrate the > problem. It makes perfectly sense to use the Wilcoxon test on my datasets. > However, you replies were nonsensical, since you could not solve the > problem > but rather just bullied me. > > Anyway, this is the solution to the problem: the exact=TRUE statement > should > be added > > > w <- wilcox.test(c(1:50),(c(1:50)+100)) > > w$p.value > [1] 7.066072e-18 > > w <- wilcox.test(c(1:50),(c(1:50)+100), exact=TRUE) > > w$p.value > [1] 1.982331e-29 > > Best regards, > genecleaner > > -- > View this message in context: > http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/BIZARRE-results-from-wilcox-test-tp3597818p3598039.html > Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.