Re: Statisically Insignificant
- From: "z" <gzuckier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Mar 2006 08:30:44 -0800
Richard Ulrich wrote:
On 29 Mar 2006 07:02:22 -0800, "z" <gzuckier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip, main content]
Richard Ulrich wrote:
On 27 Mar 2006 19:55:07 -0800, franklin.sr@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
...
Statistically, if you buy tickets with different numbers, your
chances of winning *do* increase proportionately.
z >
actually, this kind of points out what I consider to be a confusion in
teaching between "statistics" and "probability". to me, statistics is
when you have a known sample and are trying to estimate the properties
of the larger population. Probability is when you have the known
population, and are trying to estimate the properties of a sample. The
lottery falls into the latter category. Seems to me.
That's interesting, and I'll think about it.
It does seem better to say (above), "your probability increases",
but I'm not sure that "known population" entirely captures it.
There is certainly "statistical behavior" for samples
drawn with a known probability mechanism -- The lottery
does not really give a "population" unless you measure each
and every lottery separately. But you have a consistent
generating mechanism.
--
Rich Ulrich, wpilib@xxxxxxxx
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
I suppose you could ask, given X lottery tickets total, how many would
you have to buy to have your probability of winning be statistically
signficant, i.e. a less than alpha chance, where alpha = .05 or
whatever. Large number.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Statisically Insignificant
- From: Richard Ulrich
- Re: Statisically Insignificant
- From: robert . dodier
- Re: Statisically Insignificant
- References:
- Statisically Insignificant
- From: franklin . sr
- Re: Statisically Insignificant
- From: Richard Ulrich
- Re: Statisically Insignificant
- From: z
- Re: Statisically Insignificant
- From: Richard Ulrich
- Statisically Insignificant
- Prev by Date: statistics: Robustness in testing
- Next by Date: Re: Statisically Insignificant
- Previous by thread: Re: Statisically Insignificant
- Next by thread: Re: Statisically Insignificant
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|