Re: The reason of a notation (The unnecessary explanation).
- From: Jack Tomsky <jtomsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:33:50 EDT
The reason of a notation (The unnecessary
explanation).
In testing differences of two proportions, p1 and p2,
I prefer a fractional REPRSENTATION as follows:
_____ pj = xj / nj that must be read at one only
way: xj successes in nj trials (were observed).
The reason I propose this notation
____it is unequivocal ( because we are completely
aware of the situation)
____it is simple.
It is only a notation that must be used exclusively
on the CONTEXT it was <invented> . C´est mon droît .
All stupid claims that it is not allowed to use it
because contains a symbol, / , that is, the one of a
division, is wrong and ridiculous.
.Why?
If it was so, if it had any reasonability, all
Algebra books should be mended because they borrows
older symbols and ascribe to them a completely
different meaning, as everybody knows. (even the
ichthyologists, I presume).
For example (quoting)
*** Let R be a set on which two binary operations are
defined, called addition and multiplication, and
denoted by + and •. Then R is called a commutative
ring with respect to these operations if the
following properties hold: …***
Of course this <addition> and <multiplication> have
the most general meaning we can ascribe to these
operations. Nobody thinks (not even the
Ichthyologists) that are the common operations that
are called so.
Therefore when I wrote p1= 4/10 IN THE INDICATED
CONTEXT has the precise meaning I indicated and
therefore could never be understood has 4 divided by
10. NEVER.
___________licas (Luis A. Afonso)
When you incorporated this notation in the statement of the hypotheses to be tested, you ended up claiming that under some circumstances, 8/13 <= 3/13. This is such a strange result that an explanation definitely is necessary.
Jack
.
- References:
- The reason of a notation (The unnecessary explanation).
- From: \"Luis A. Afonso\"
- The reason of a notation (The unnecessary explanation).
- Prev by Date: Re: A BLUNDER more from Bob Ling
- Next by Date: Re: The reason of a notation (The unnecessary explanation).
- Previous by thread: The reason of a notation (The unnecessary explanation).
- Next by thread: Re: The reason of a notation (The unnecessary explanation).
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|