Re: Corollary: N-P Silliness in Estimation Theory (was: Re: Unusual formulae for confidence intervals)

"Reef Fish" <large_nassua_grouper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1164416506.577183.36540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


David Winsemius wrote:
"Reef Fish" <large_nassua_grouper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1164375456.941624.6580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

The only person in this newsgroup who claimed to have used
the unbiased estimate for sigma was Jack Tomsky, who used it
in an indirect way, when he estimated the quantile of a
distribution.

Not necessarily the only one who ever used it, though.

That is a really frivolous nit-pick on an obvious hyperbole, though
as stated, the hyperbole is beyond any valid nitpick!

Jack was the ONLY person in this newsgroup "who claimed to have
used the unbiased estimate of sigma".

Can you name anyone else who made such a claim in this newsgroup?

My statement did not contradict any of yours. It is only your extreme,
one might even wonder pathological, sensitivity to the hint of error that
drives your response. Several postings over the years in sci.stat.math
have pointed out that s is a biased estimator of sigma.

<snip>

But the POINT I think I have made, with adequate supporting reasons,
is the SILLINESS of over-stressing the importance (or any importance)
of the criterion of "unbiasedness", when the most commonly used
(and frequently used) estimate for sigma is the biased sample
standard deviation s.

None of your pearls were hinted at being cultured.

--
David Winsemius
.

Relevant Pages