Re: 0.13% , 0.17 % ARE LESS THAN 1%, IGNORANT TOMSKY
- From: "Luis A. Afonso" <licas_@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:16:14 EDT
I got finally why Lockeed repeatable crashing planes: The Mathematicians are from Standford (happily they are just reaching their RETIREMENT) and even they ignore that in a statistical test the criterion to REJECT the null hypotheses is that the obtained SIGNIFICANT LEVEL should be LESS THAN the arbitrary prefixed one.
Jack Tomsky congratulating john Smith for his opinion that H0 must be accepted is the complete illustration I want to say about their expertise relative to Hypotheses Testing.
_____________
Luis.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 0.13% , 0.17 % ARE LESS THAN 1%, IGNORANT TOMSKY
- From: Greg Heath
- Re: 0.13% , 0.17 % ARE LESS THAN 1%, IGNORANT TOMSKY
- From: Jack Tomsky
- Re: 0.13% , 0.17 % ARE LESS THAN 1%, IGNORANT TOMSKY
- Prev by Date: Re: K Nearest Neighbors in time series forecasting
- Next by Date: Re: K Nearest Neighbors in time series forecasting
- Previous by thread: chi 2 test?
- Next by thread: Re: 0.13% , 0.17 % ARE LESS THAN 1%, IGNORANT TOMSKY
- Index(es):
