"Robert J. MacG. Dawson" schrieb: > > Rich Ulrich wrote: > > > google statistics - > > heteroscedastic 7420 homoscedastic 2900 > > heteroskedastic 7500 homoskedastic 2140 > > Sample X N Sample p > 1 7420 14920 0.497319 > 2 2900 5040 0.575397 > > Estimate for p(1) - p(2): -0.0780778 > 95% CI for p(1) - p(2): (-0.0939076, -0.0622480) > Test for p(1) - p(2) = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = -9.67 P-Value = 0.000 > > Showing a difference in mean usage of between 6% and 9%, statistically > significant at any p-value you care to name. > I wonder why? My best guess is that some people use "not > h[eter/om]os[c/k]edastic" instead of "h[om/eter]os[c/k]edastic" and that > this correlates with national usage or level of pedantry, though I can't > see any obvious reason.
My guess is the hard "t" and "r" correlate with "sk" and the soft "m" with "sc". At least it would be my try, since I were not sure, how to spell correctly (not my mother tongue). Gottfried Helms . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
