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 <genecleaner@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]]

