RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: mafs question< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1991
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2011,09:16   

Quote (Raevmo @ Mar. 11 2011,07:16)
The problem is a bit weird. Suppose it turns out that a t-test says it's very unlikely that the sample was taken from a population with mean mu=mu_0, i.e. has a very small p-value, even though we know for sure that the sample was taken from a population with mean mu_0. Then what? The only sensible conclusion then seems to be that the sampling procedure was "non-random" in some sense. Does that make sense, Oh Bob?

Yes, that makes sense.

Assuming there's a decent amount of data, I wouldn't worry too much about the distribution: if you've got the means and standard errors, you'll be fine. If I had the original data, I would have used a GLM. But if the original data were to hand, we wouldn't have this problem!

I'll let Erasmus explain the sins of log-transformation, and how it relates to cricket.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
  26 replies since Mar. 10 2011,11:59 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]