On 13 Mar 2001 16:32:15 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman
Rubin) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>RD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 13 Mar 2001 07:12:33 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
>
>>>1. some test statistics are naturally (the way they work anyway) ONE sided
>>>with respect to retain/reject decisions
>
>>>example: chi square test for independence ... we reject ONLY when chi
>>>square is LARGER than some CV ... to put a CV at the lower end of the
>>>relevant chi square distribution makes no sense
>
>>Hmm... do not want to start flame war but just can not go by such HUGE
>>misconception about chi squared test. Indeed exactly reverse is true :
>>chi squred test is always two tailed. There is nothing to prove just
>>look at the definition : Khi^2(n)=sum(Z^2).
>
>There is a way of looking at the chi-squared test otherwise.
>
>In fact, a low chi-squared would constitute a question of
>whether what purport to be random numbers really are.
What do you exactly mean by that?
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
