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


David Winsemius wrote:
"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!

My statement did not contradict any of yours.

As I pointed out in my reply.

It is only your extreme, one might even wonder pathological,
sensitivity to the hint of error that drives your response.

Only as a learned result of David Winsemius's extreme, pathological
tendency to nick-pick what HE thought was a misstatement.

Else, what's the POINT of this:

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

If I didn't say so, and everyone would know it's obvious, why make
a statement that has no CONTENT of any kind, hummm, if it weren't
your way of frivolous nitpick?

<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

I have yet to find anything posted by you that even resemble a pearl,
cultured or otherwise.

-- Reef Fish Bob.

.