On 30-May-2012 07:33:12 peter dalgaard wrote:
On May 29, 2012, at 17:55 , maxbre wrote:
Given this example [snip] And given the fact that: - in the note of R Wilcox.test is clearly stated: "The literature is not unanimous about the definitions of the Wilcoxon rank sum and Mann-Whitney tests. The two most common definitions correspond to the sum of the ranks of the first sample with the minimum value
subtracted or not. R subtracts [...], giving a value which is larger
by m(m+1)/2 for a first sample of size m"
NB: You are quoting like the Devil reads the Bible: The bit in [...] is "and S-PLUS does not". So R's value is _smaller_ by m(m+1)/2. [snip]
Since Peter would seem to be unique in the fortune of being able to observe the Devil reading the Bible, I propose that this be added to the Fortunes of us all. Ted. ------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding at wlandres.net> Date: 01-Jun-2012 Time: 00:05:40 This message was sent by XFMail