[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Two probability questions...
> If X has chi-square distribution with 5 degrees of freedom
> 1. what is the probability of X > 3
Look that value up in a chi-square table and find out.
> 2. what is the probability of X > 3 given that X > 1.1
Look both values up in a
dennis roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[regarding the "point biserial correlation"]
> and it certainly has nothing to do with a "shortcut" formula for
> calculating r ... it MAY have decades ago but it has not for the past
> 20 years ...
While I certainly agree that many textbooks conv
Herman Rubin wrote:
> > As I recall, Lagrange (or was it Laplace?) computed the
> exact distribution of the sum of uniform random variables
> so he could use .05 level tests for a sample coming from
> a uniform distribution about 1795. Physicists use 2 sigma,
> approximately .05. I do not know
A comment in a recent posting reminded me of the
difficulty most of us have in seeing all messages.
Some time ago, I abandoned my server supplied news
feed for a commercial one. As far as I can tell, I
now see all messages posted to the news groups
that I read. A list of such services may be found
Hi Dan and all --
I had intended to comment about the independent-dependent variable
discussion
earlier but I got side-tracked. Since Dan reminded us with his comment:
"> This problem statement also brings back the independent-dependent
variable
> discussion. In the real context, the activity
Hi Dan and all --
I had intended to comment about the independent-dependent variable
discussion
earlier but I got side-tracked. Since Dan reminded us with his comment:
"> This problem statement also brings back the independent-dependent
variable
> discussion. In the real context, the activity
On 19 Oct 2000, Herman Rubin wrote:
> Physicists use 2 sigma, approximately .05.
Not in particle physics and astrophysics, where 5 sigma is
generally used. Documention:
C. Seife, 2000: "CERN's gamble shows perils, rewards of
playing odds". Science, 289, 2260-2 (29 Sept. 2000).
Quoted in the
dennis roberts wrote:
> thus ... when we spend all this time on debating the usefulness or lack of
> usefulness of a p value ... whether it be the .05 level or ANY other ... we
> are totally ignoring the fact that this p value that is reported ... could
> have been the result of many factors havi
randomly independent events have the p value being the multiplication of
each event's p value ... so ... p for getting a head in a good coin is
.5 ... 2 in a row = .25 ... etc.
here is a table up to 10 in a row of the same side
Row numheads pvalue
1 1 0.50
2
There is certainly nothing magical about .05. The .05 convention has been
widely abused. Sometimes all that is really grasped is that there is
uncertainty, and that is the important message.
Because people in general don't have much of a gut feeling about probability,
it is often helpful to us
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, David Hardman wrote:
> And it's almost too obvious to be worth stating, but let's
> not forget the role of replication in science. You may get
> a p value of p < .0001, but if no-one else can replicate it
> then your result may well be a fluke. Of course, the
> failures t
I have been searching for some "psychological" data on the .05 issue - I
know it's out there but haven't found it yet. It went something like this:
Claim to a friend that you have a fair coin. But the coin is not fair. Flip the
coin (you get heads). Flip it again (heads again). Ask the friend
dennis roberts wrote:
> 4. are all the Ss in the study at the end ... compared to the beginning?
See today's "Wizard of Id" [Friday Oct. 20]...
-Robert Dawson
=
Instructions for joining and leaving t
And it's almost too obvious to be worth stating, but let's
not forget the role of replication in science. You may get
a p value of p < .0001, but if no-one else can replicate it
then your result may well be a fluke. Of course, the
failures to replicate may not be so easy to publish...!
On Fr
what is interesting to me in our discussions of p values ... .05 for
example is ... we have failed (generally that is) to put this one piece of
information in the context of the total environment of the investigation or
study ... we have blown totally out of proportion ... THIS one "fact" to
a
Herman Rubin wrote:
>
> In article <8smcpv$41r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Choi, Young Sung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I am a statistically poor researcher and have a statistical problem.
>
> >I have two candidate distributions, A(theta1) and B(theta1, theta2) to model
> >my data.
> >Then how sho
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
> Actually, it often strikes me as curious that so many
> people continue to report results as p < .05, when they
> could in fact report the actual value.
Well, the exact value isn't really all that relevant, certainly if
significan
17 matches
Mail list logo
