In sci.stat.consult Elliot Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In sci.stat.consult Ronald Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Herman as usual is absolutely correct; the validity of the Fisher test is
> analagous to the validity of regression tests which are derived
> conditional on x but, since the distribution does not involve x, are valid
> unconditionally even if the x's are random.
If I take your analogy in the direction that leads back to
the Fisher test, I should be able to paraphrase the above as
"the validity of the [Fisher test] which [is] derived conditional
on [the fixed marginals] but, since the distribution does not
involve [the fixed marginals], [is] valid unconditionally even
if the [marginals] are random.
Please clarify what is meant by "the distribution does not
involve [the fixed marginals]". I am not clear on this:
the Fisher test statistic (hypergeometric upper tail probability)
certainly *does* depend on the fixed marginals in this
case -- they appear in every term in that tail sum.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
