From dimitris.rizopoulos at med.kuleuven.be  Thu Feb  7 18:16:32 2008
From: dimitris.rizopoulos at med.kuleuven.be (Dimitris Rizopoulos)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:16:32 +0100
Subject: [Rd] pnorm
References: <BAY127-W15EFA85D9E6F501736E0CFA52E0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <00bb01c869ad$2f8197e0$0e40210a@www.domain>

you should use the 'lower.tail' argument of pnorm(), e.g., check the 
following:

2 * (1 - pnorm(8.104474))
2 * pnorm(8.104474, lower.tail = FALSE)


I hope it helps.

Best,
Dimitris

----
Dimitris Rizopoulos
Ph.D. Student
Biostatistical Centre
School of Public Health
Catholic University of Leuven

Address: Kapucijnenvoer 35, Leuven, Belgium
Tel: +32/(0)16/336899
Fax: +32/(0)16/337015
Web: http://med.kuleuven.be/biostat/
     http://www.student.kuleuven.be/~m0390867/dimitris.htm

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jing hua zhao" <jinghuazhao at hotmail.com>
To: <r-devel at stat.math.ethz.ch>
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 
> tried to get around with mvtnorm package but it turns out to be 
> using pnorm for univariate case. I should have missed some earlier 
> discussions, but for the moment is there any short answer for a 
> higher precision? Somehow these days, statistical geneticists are 
> infatuated with such tiny p values!
>
> Many thanks in advance,
>
>
> Jing Hua
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Telly addicts unite!
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
> 


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm



[Rd] pnorm
Dimitris Rizopoulos