Re: WHO STOPS HIM?

Date: Dec 11, 2007 4:46 PM
Author: John Smith
Subject: Re: INSISTING IN SHOWING HIS IGNORANCE AND RUDENESS

*** Luis, It should be a simple matter for you to increase your sample size until your 1% critical value agrees with the asymptotic value. Yet, you cannot do this! Why not? Do you want me to give you instructions? Can't you figure it out for yourself? John ***

MY RESPOST

FIRST OF ALL

I´ll intend report some published data obtained by EXACTLY THE SAME ALGORITHM I USE:
This paper can be find on Net
*** Precise finite-sample quantiles of the Jarque-Bera adjusted Lagrange multiplier test *** (Aug 2005 vertion)

Critical values obtained for 10^7 samples, size N=10000

___significance level_____critical value____chi-square
_______1%___________9.3128_________9.21034__
_______5%___________5.9857_________5.99146__
______10%___________4.5888_________4.60517__


**********************************
Date: Dec 11, 2007 9:52 AM
Author: John Smith
Subject: Re: NOT BEFORE

Luis,

You are either an ignoramus, a liar, or both:
"I just proved that the asymptotic values can be reached if the size is fairly beyond N=1000. (See my today?s post in this thread)"

*** 4.43 is NOT close to 4.605 ***
*** 5.88 is NOT close to 5.991 ***
*** 10.00 is NOT close to 9.210 ***
******* No wonder you can't do statistics. You can't even count!*****
HA HA HA John *****************************

This AH´s should be directedto the emeritus clown on Statistics John Smith who is
________UNLEARNED
________RUDE
________STUPID
at a PYRAMIDAL DEGREE.



My Comment
It´s important that nor the SKEWNESS estimator, not the KURTOSIS one follows rigorously the NORMAL DISTRIBUTION. Therefore to test the Jarque –Bera algorithm exactness using Mont Carlo simulations throughout the capacity to attain the theoretical Distribution (Chi-square, 2 degrees of freedom) is completely FUTILE by two reasons:
____1___The above one
____2___The infinity character of ASYMPTOTICAL CONVERGENCE.

John Smith, thinks (as a pseudo-statistician, a bumpkin with no sense of randomness is) that my impossibility to attain these limit IS A PROOF THAT I USED WRONG ALGORITHM to find out the critical values
I´m not as naïve, as he thinks!
___________
Luis Amaral Afonso
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: As Stakes Increase, Prime-Number Theory Moves Closer to Proof
    ... >> John Smith wrote: ... >>>to a lay audience. ... Did I present ignorance as bliss? ... believing that you have achieved understanding when in reality you have ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: calculating PI
    ... when thinking about calculating pi to a huge number of decimal points. ... One purpose is to show the power of an algorithm, ... to study the digits that make up this transcendental number. ... number must be highly related to our ignorance - the more ingenious ...
    (comp.lang.basic.misc)
  • Re: mpeg 2 editing
    ... >>> Why degradation? ... If the algorithm is excellent, ... Sheesh, the ignorance. ... Look up the meaning of "lossy." ...
    (rec.video.desktop)
  • Re: .NET 3.0 Workflow tracking service encryption
    ... Out of curiousity (ignorance), what does FIPS have to do with this? ... FIPS-enabled machine as this algorithm is not FIPS-compliant. ... to use a FIPS-compliant algorithm? ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework)
  • Re: Deprived
    ... Notice how Tomsky points out an error in Amaral's algorithm and ... Luis Amaral Afonso is a model of scholarly behavior for all to follow. ... John Smith ...
    (sci.stat.math)
Quantcast