On 25 Jan 2000 16:24:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Radford Neal)
wrote:
< ... >
me>
> >I don't have references; but I remember classroom exercises of obscure
> >tests to check on any *conceivable* dependency -- it is not like
> >nobody has every collected this kind of data.
> Failure to reject the null hypothesis is not the same thing as proving
> that it is true. General biological knowledge is enough to pretty
> much guarantee that some dependency exists, though it might well be so
> small as to be undetectable.
- well, yeah, that certainly is true.
I wasn't saying 'conceivable' merely to emphasize the completeness.
- offspring imply dependency ? yeah, that too, another play on
words.
>From the original Post -
> > A related question-
> > > I seem to remember reading or hearing that the sex of a child after the
> > > first is substantially more likely to match the sex of the previous child
Note, "substantially". Huge datasets haven't been enough, yet.
--
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
===========================================================================
This list is open to everyone. Occasionally, people lacking respect
for other members of the list send messages that are inappropriate
or unrelated to the list's discussion topics. Please just delete the
offensive email.
For information concerning the list, please see the following web page:
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
===========================================================================
