From 15a9c0656dc2b4ff6ba1be6a18d4669a64bae88b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Daniel <mail@danielluedecke.de>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 16:11:27 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] fix formula in docs

---
 man/p_direction.lm.Rd | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/man/p_direction.lm.Rd b/man/p_direction.lm.Rd
index e6f0d36ea..79151a02a 100644
--- a/man/p_direction.lm.Rd
+++ b/man/p_direction.lm.Rd
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ with Bayesian statistics (Makowski et al., 2019).
 
 In most cases, it seems that the \emph{pd} has a direct correspondence with the
 frequentist one-sided \emph{p}-value through the formula (for two-sided \emph{p}):
-\deqn{p = 2 \times (1 - p_d)}{p = 2 * (1 - pd)}
+\ifelse{html}{\out{p = 2 * (1 - p<sub>d</sub>)}}{\eqn{p = 2 \times (1 - p_d)}}
 Thus, a two-sided p-value of respectively \code{.1}, \code{.05}, \code{.01} and \code{.001} would
 correspond approximately to a \emph{pd} of \verb{95\%}, \verb{97.5\%}, \verb{99.5\%} and \verb{99.95\%}.
 See \code{\link[bayestestR:pd_to_p]{pd_to_p()}} for details.