I have results that say the following:

A = B
B = C
A != C

lolwut? maybe I should have paid attention when I took the class.

9/28/2010 6:09:46 PM

k

9/28/2010 6:11:35 PM

k doesn't come into play for these analyses. that's a different data set.

9/28/2010 6:13:13 PM

Quote :

"FOR THESE ANALYSES"

Quote :

"DIFFERENT DATA SET"

9/28/2010 6:15:16 PM

i thought stats was easy.
i kinda liked it.


but it was the only math class i "got".
i just completely understood it.


i hoever have no idea what you are talking about lol

[Edited on September 28, 2010 at 6:18 PM. Reason : V oops]

9/28/2010 6:15:19 PM

Quote :

"I THAT STATS"

9/28/2010 6:17:59 PM

I mean, are your df the same?
Are you using an identical significance value?
Universal sample sizes?



come on wdprice3, help US help YOU.

9/28/2010 6:18:02 PM

Quote :

"A = B B = C A != C"

Sounds like a wrong answer

9/28/2010 6:20:12 PM

Quote :

"i thought stats was easy. i kinda liked it. but it was the only math class i "got". i just completely understood it. i hoever have no idea what you are talking about lol"

ditto. i got dat 190% A+ in stat. it was one of several i got during my college career. A+s always made me feel warm and fuzzy inside. especially because most of the classes i got them in i rarely attended

9/28/2010 6:21:37 PM

more like I hate random processes

9/28/2010 6:22:36 PM

98.3% of all U.S. citizens hate statistics

9/28/2010 6:22:57 PM

likely probability

9/28/2010 6:23:22 PM

the more you learn about statistics, the less you will trust them

9/28/2010 6:25:51 PM

it is witchcraft and devilty

9/28/2010 6:26:40 PM

^^exactly

Quote :

"i thought stats was easy."

as did I. but class != actual use of stats

Quote :

"I mean, are your df the same? Are you using an identical significance value? Universal sample sizes?"

oh hell no son. this is real world data with shit all over the place. nothing about these data sets allows for basic assumptions.... AFAIK. well I'm using 0.05 for the significance level for all tests.

[Edited on September 28, 2010 at 6:30 PM. Reason : .]

9/28/2010 6:29:46 PM

stats is fucking easy, at least at the undergrad level.

Quote :

"maybe I you should have paid attention when I you took the class."

[Edited on September 28, 2010 at 6:31 PM. Reason : ^ ok, fair enough]

9/28/2010 6:30:22 PM

^

Quote :

"class != actual use of stats"

when it takes a well known stats guy two weeks to come up with a proper model and testing methods, stats is not fucking easy.

[Edited on September 28, 2010 at 6:32 PM. Reason : ^ok, gotcha in the edit]

9/28/2010 6:31:27 PM

^

Quote :

"^ ok, fair enough"

9/28/2010 6:32:12 PM

^

Quote :

" ^ok, gotcha in the edit"

9/28/2010 6:33:08 PM

Quote :

"98.3% of all U.S. citizens hate statistics"

9/28/2010 6:38:50 PM

99% of statistics is 100% bullshit.

9/28/2010 6:40:05 PM

Quote :

"I HOE EVER"

9/28/2010 6:41:20 PM

9/28/2010 8:43:44 PM

i had one class of that in undergraduate and i was -------- that close to shooting my teacher in the face

9/29/2010 1:04:20 AM

stats is cake for undergrad.

grad level statistics is harder but not grad level hard.

9/29/2010 1:07:17 AM

I have a ST371 test tomorrow.

I went to class once (2 days ago) to turn in homework, and left as soon as he started talking about what a sample size was.



cool huh?

I'm AstralAdvent and i approved this message.

9/29/2010 1:56:45 AM

A results B and B results C but A does not result C ?

9/29/2010 2:18:58 AM

^correct

11/12/2010 2:21:23 PM

When I took statistics it was nothing more than a class to show proofs for things related to calculus. It sucked.

11/12/2010 2:32:29 PM

le sigh. this isn't a class. this is real shit.

11/12/2010 2:33:23 PM

i'm in a stat class this fall

i swear it's special ed or something

11/12/2010 2:43:49 PM

237 out of 299 people hate that shit.

11/12/2010 2:53:30 PM

i recommend you graff that shizzzz

11/12/2010 2:59:33 PM

5/4 people have a problem with fractions

11/12/2010 9:11:34 PM

Quote :

"A = B B = C A != C "

perfectly legitimate answer in statistics. seeing as statistics are just lies. damn lies.

11/12/2010 9:16:41 PM

I see all the obvious jokes have been made. Well done.

11/12/2010 9:21:36 PM

Transitive property does not work in the real worlds? I never took a stats class, not sure how I avoided them but alas I was successful. The stats/probability section on the FE was easy as hell dough.

11/13/2010 11:11:39 AM

Quote :

"should have paid attention"

11/13/2010 11:14:21 AM

whatcha workin on man

stats are easy at the undergraduate level but, as with most mathematics, the whole story is not easy

11/13/2010 1:55:44 PM

it was my research; not a class or anything. bacteria levels. twas a bitch

12/16/2010 8:09:19 PM

^ I think you got the wrong answer.

12/16/2010 8:54:55 PM

zombie bacteria?

12/16/2010 9:10:02 PM

Maybe I'm getting trolled, but could you be a little more specific? Are those composite hypotheses? Independent ones? Contrasts/Comparisons? What is your model? What are your assumptions? What is your design?

It's hard to know what you are talking about with any detail.

12/17/2010 12:35:29 AM

Quote :

"When I took statistics it was nothing more than a class to show proofs for things related to calculus. It sucked."

what kind of stats was that?

12/17/2010 12:59:24 AM

^ST 371. We covered probabilities and the like in the first 2 or 3 classes. The rest of the semester was spent doing formal proofs of various calculus principles.

The professor was out quite often because he was an expert witness on a murder trial. In the trial he played the part of C3PO, calculating and communicating the probability of the DNA evidence at the crime scene not matching the suspect's DNA.

That class sucked. After the first test all remaining tests were about formal proofs. So other people taking stats with a different professor got to say the odds of picking a green jellybean were 20%. We had to show a proof for what would happen if people were constantly adding and removing green jellybeans in an environment where the rate of white jellybeans doubled every 10 minutes.... squared. A poor example, but it's been too long for me to remember. IIRC most proofs were related to calculus principles, not really related to statistics at all.

It's a class I want to forget have forgotten.

I guess it all depends on your professor. There was another class like that MA 305 "Introductory Linear Algebra and Matrices". Most people I knew got stuck doing proofs. I took it in the summer and it was really easy. Plug in the number, chug, get the answer. No proofs whatsoever.


[Edited on December 17, 2010 at 10:55 AM. Reason : -]

12/17/2010 10:41:34 AM

use the convolution integral.

12/17/2010 3:10:51 PM

Quote :

"^ST 371. We covered probabilities and the like in the first 2 or 3 classes. The rest of the semester was spent doing formal proofs of various calculus principles."

I took ST 371 as an engineering undergrad too, but now I am a grad student in statistics. While it is true that a lot of results in statistics are a consequence of calculus (namely taylor series manipulations), I don't remember there being too much theorem proving in ST 371. Actually, in most of my 1st year theory courses, there wasn't all that much theorem proving either. Do you remember who your professor was? That could make a huge difference.

As to your example, you have to realize that those are probabilistic statements. So really what you are saying is that A is plausibly equal to B, B is plausibly equal to C, but A is not plausibly equal to C at this level test. It's not hard to imagine that the 95% CI for A and B overlap (so they are plausibly equal), B and Cs 95% CIs overlap (and so they are plausibly equal), but A and C's 95% CIs do not, thus they are not plausibly equal at the .05 level.

Transitivity does not hold for probabilistic hypotheses.

12/18/2010 5:20:31 PM

sounds more topology or set theory

12/18/2010 8:14:47 PM

Well, what he is talking about is an extension of set theory. Each hypothesis is a mapped to a rejection region, which is a set in R^k, where k is the number of hypotheses being tested. So this actually an extension of set theory, but the sets themselves are random.

12/19/2010 11:16:55 PM

i cant believe i understood what neolithic said

damn, i've become a nerd.

12/19/2010 11:19:13 PM