if you could make a W10 machine which has this issue available to us via something like teamviewer, we'd be keen to take a look. if that would be possible, drop us a line at contact <at> jamovi.org

kind regards

jonathon

Statistics: Posted by jonathon — Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:28 am

]]>

]]>

]]>

i've decided to treat all divisions from now on as floating point, so 1/2 will now equal 0.5

i've also added an integer divide for the old behaviour 1//2, will now equal 0

this will be in the 1.1.6 version or newer.

(wrt file associations not working, the 1.1.5 will fix this)

thanks for reporting.

jonathon

Statistics: Posted by jonathon — Sat Sep 28, 2019 6:26 am

]]>

so the computer science answer is that when you divide two integers, the result itself is an integer. so 1/2 = 0.5, which is then truncated to 0.

if you go 1.0/2 you'll get the expected 0.5

it's an issue which crops up in a lot of places, i.e.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/213 ... -7-and-3-3

so now i'm wondering if there's any issue with treating *all* divisions as decimals. i'm not entirely sure. i'll have to think about it.

wrt double clicking .omv files, yup, i'm on it.

cheers

jonathon

Statistics: Posted by jonathon — Sat Sep 28, 2019 2:17 am

]]>

``variable1`/`variable``

- Code:
`1/2`

- Code:
`2/1`

2) I used to open .omv files directly by double clicking on them. Now that will just open an empty Jamovi file. But opening datasets from the menu works fine.

Thanks for reading!

Statistics: Posted by Terpsichord — Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:42 pm

]]>

MAgojam wrote:

Hi, pullume.

Your p values, to make them more readable, are reported as "Scientific notation", which reduces the number of zero decimals to be displayed.

Your values ...

without e-7 they would be

0.000000672

without e-4 they would be

0.0001722

Cheer.

Maurizio

pullume wrote:However im getting something totally different for my assignment analysis.

I get these results with e's in them - 6.720e-7 and 1.722e-4. Can you explain these please?

Hi, pullume.

Your p values, to make them more readable, are reported as "Scientific notation", which reduces the number of zero decimals to be displayed.

Your values ...

without e-7 they would be

0.000000672

without e-4 they would be

0.0001722

Cheer.

Maurizio

Dear Maurizio,

I can't thank you enough!

xxx

Statistics: Posted by pullume — Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:44 pm

]]>

pullume wrote:

However im getting something totally different for my assignment analysis.

I get these results with e's in them - 6.720e-7 and 1.722e-4. Can you explain these please?

However im getting something totally different for my assignment analysis.

I get these results with e's in them - 6.720e-7 and 1.722e-4. Can you explain these please?

Hi, pullume.

Your p values, to make them more readable, are reported as "Scientific notation", which reduces the number of zero decimals to be displayed.

Your values ...

without e-7 they would be

0.000000672

without e-4 they would be

0.0001722

Cheer.

Maurizio

Statistics: Posted by MAgojam — Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:30 am

]]>

if you have your p-value settings set to 'significant figures', then small values will be represented with scientific notation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... E-notation). you change these to 'decimal places' if you prefer the < .001.

cheers

jonathon

Statistics: Posted by jonathon — Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:11 am

]]>

On the Jamovi video for one-sample t-test it says that the test for normality presents results in p-values.

However im getting something totally different for my assignment analysis.

I get these results with e's in them - 6.720e-7 and 1.722e-4. Can you explain these please?

Statistics: Posted by pullume — Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:30 pm

]]>

]]>

moretests is what we call an "addon", where it adds results to existing analyses. just run the t-test or ANOVA as usual, and choose 'normality tests' (granted, there's an issue with 'normality tests' still be labeled as shapiro-wilk). see here:

Screen Shot 2019-09-19 at 08.43.28.png

cheers

jonathon

Statistics: Posted by jonathon — Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:45 pm

]]>

]]>

cheers

jonathon

Statistics: Posted by jonathon — Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:46 am

]]>

In terms of reducing options I think you could have a normality test appear whenever you ask for a Q-Q Plot of Residuals and then present the S-W or K-S test based on the degrees of freedom. I'm going to find it challenging to teach the difference between a good enough Q-Q plot and one that's a cause for concern when I don't feel confident on knowing where the boundary is myself (since I rarely pay much attention to them). A normality test quantifies the evidence for deviation which makes life easier, and a histogram of the residuals is far easier to interpret than a plot where the normal curve has been straightened..

Cheers,

Wake

Statistics: Posted by Wake — Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:14 pm

]]>