I'm puzzled by several things in the exchange of answers and comments here.
First of all, when I try the OP's original example I don't get a p value as small as the ones that are being debated here (several different 2.13.x versions and R-devel):
a <- 1:10
b <- 10:20
t.test(a,b)
## data: a and b
## t = -6.862, df = 18.998, p-value = 1.513e-06
Second, when I make the difference between groups much bigger, I do in fact get the results suggested by @eWizardII:
a <- 1:10
b <- 110:120
(t1 <- t.test(a,b))
# data: a and b
# t = -79.0935, df = 18.998, p-value < 2.2e-16
#
> t1$p.value
[1] 2.138461e-25
The behavior of the printed output in t.test
is driven by its call to stats:::print.htest
(which is also called by other statistical testing functions such as chisq.test
, as noted by the OP), which in turn calls format.pval
, which presents p values less than its value of eps
(which is .Machine$double.eps
by default) as < eps
. I'm surprised to find myself disagreeing with such generally astute commenters ...
Finally, although it seems silly to worry about the precise value of a very small p value, the OP is correct that these values are often used as indices of strength of evidence in the bioinformatics literature -- for example, one might test 100,000 candidate genes and look at the distribution of resulting p values (search for "volcano plot" for one example of this sort of procedure).
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…