On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:27:57 GMT, Jerry Dallal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Kevin J wrote: > >> I realize there is a distinction between saying this and saying that >> there is a 95% chance that the population parameter will fall within a >> _particular_ CI, but I had always thought this distinction very >> slight. It appears I am wrong. Both of my stats texts do emphasize >> that there is a distinction, but don't explain what the real world >> impact of this is. Care to educate me? > >Let X1, X2 be U(theta-1, theta+1), that is uniform on the interval >(theta-1, theta+1). Then (min(X1,X2), max(X1,X2)) is a 50% CI for >theta because there is a 25% chance that both X1 and X2 will be less >than theta and a 25% chance that both will be greater than theta. >However, if the length of the interval is 1 or more, the interval >*must* contain theta even though it's a 50% CI. Awesome, this explains it well. Thanks. Now I feel a little sheepish, but what _is_ the appropriate use of a CI? My incorrect assumptions are in my previous post. -- Kevin J hi spambot, my e-mail adress was made especially for YOU! . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
