Re: P( |X1-X2| > a)=? when X~N(my,sigma) (URGENT)

Tarjei, The key is that if U is any random variable with mean 0 and variance sigma^2 and a>0, then Pr(abs(U)>a) = Pr(U > a) + Pr(U <- a) = 2P(U>a) because of the symmetry of the normal distribution. Pr(U>a) = 1-Pr(U I recently ran into this problem when assisting my girlfriend with her > studies

RE: a fortiori

Hello Bob and All -- I think SOME long phrases are discussed in The Browser's Dictionary, by John Ciardi. I don't know if it is still in print, but it is authoritative and fascinating. (Perhaps not a lot of statistical terms and phrases, though...) -- Chris Chris Olsen George Washington H

Re: likelihood

- Original Message - From: Li0N_iN_0iL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 4:45 PM Subject: Re: likelihood > David A. Heiser wrote: > >Second, one needs to read Fisher's insight into Bayes original work to > >understand Fisher's view of probabili

Re: likelihood

- Original Message - From: Bob Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 9:50 AM Subject: Re: likelihood > I'll suppose that you don't really want to have a > discussion about probability, but are really > asking about 'likelihood.' > > The defini

Re: Proper way to correct for multiple comparisons

While Dave Howell and Bruce Weaver are technically correct with respect to simple effects, I am not so certain that simple effects adequately represent your hypothesis. You write, "The hypothesis is that harder logic will produce a larger DV than easy logic, but this will not o

Re: likelihood

The definition below is (in all likelihood) taken from A.W.F. Edwards, Likelihood (Expanded Edition), John Hopkins University Press, 1992 (paper, ISBN 0-8018-4445-2). This is a delightful book. Also quite readable, although not exactly delightful, is J.O. Berger and R.L. Wolpert. The Likelihood

Re: likelihood

I'll suppose that you don't really want to have a discussion about probability, but are really asking about 'likelihood.' The definition of likelihood today, except that it may be more abstract than Fisher indented, is the same as that given by Fisher. In particular the likelihood of a hypothesi

Re: Proper way to correct for multiple comparisons

At 10:16 AM 8/11/00 -0400, David C. Howell wrote: >I agree with Bruce Weaver on this. Traditionally we do not worry about >familywise error rates for simple effects, but instead evaluate each at >alpha = .05. >Dave Howell of course, the broader issue is why .05? this totally ignores whether type

Fisher Was: Re: likelihood

In article <8mvea9$78t5j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Li0N_iN_0iL wrote: >David A. Heiser wrote: >>von Mises criticizes Fisher (1921) for his introduction of the term >>"likelihood" without defining it, since in common usage, 'likelihood' >>and 'probability" have the same meaning. >Fisher may have addre

Re: Proper way to correct for multiple comparisons

I agree with Bruce Weaver on this. Traditionally we do not worry about familywise error rates for simple effects, but instead evaluate each at alpha = .05. Dave Howell At 09:03 AM 8/11/00 -0400, Bruce Weaver wrote: >On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, jazz wrote: > >> Hi, I'm not feeling confident about my meth

Re: Proper way to correct for multiple comparisons

On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, jazz wrote: > Hi, I'm not feeling confident about my method here, and would apprecaite > it if somebody lets me know if I'm wrong, thanks. > > I'm doing a 2x2 anova (type: logic, math)(difficulty: hard, easy). The > hypothesis is that harder logic will produce a larger DV th

Re: likelihood

I'm enjoying learning about Fisher's distinction between probability and likelihood, but it seems to me that since language is alive, "modern" definitions of likelihood and probability should also be discussed. In economics, for example, in 1921, Frank Knight came up with a distinction between "r

query: survival analysis method to evaluate multiple treatment courses

Dear all, maybe anybody has an idea to solve the following survival analysis problem. I have a large breast cancer dataset. In the metastacic stadium of breast cancer the oncologists tried a lot of treatments using the "play the winner drop the loser strategy". The aim of the study having survival

Proper way to correct for multiple comparisons

Hi, I'm not feeling confident about my method here, and would apprecaite it if somebody lets me know if I'm wrong, thanks. I'm doing a 2x2 anova (type: logic, math)(difficulty: hard, easy). The hypothesis is that harder logic will produce a larger DV than easy logic, but this will not occur in ma