Rich Ulrich wrote:
> google statistics -
> heteroscedastic 7420 homoscedastic 2900
> heteroskedastic 7500 homoskedastic 2140
Sample X N Sample p
1 7420 14920 0.497319
2 2900 5040 0.575397
Estimate for p(1) - p(2): -0.0780778
95% CI for p(1) - p(2): (-0.0939076, -0.0622480)
Test for p(1) - p(2) = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = -9.67 P-Value = 0.000
Showing a difference in mean usage of between 6% and 9%, statistically
significant at any p-value you care to name.
I wonder why? My best guess is that some people use "not
h[eter/om]os[c/k]edastic" instead of "h[om/eter]os[c/k]edastic" and that
this correlates with national usage or level of pedantry, though I can't
see any obvious reason.
BTW: Note that Google rounds counts, reporting "around 7500" instances
found.
Note though:
homoscedasticity: about 4170
homoskedasticity: about 2110
heteroscedasticity: about 24,900
heteroskedasticity: about 19,800
nonhomoscedasticity: 1
nonhomoskedasticity: 0
nonheteroscedasticity: 0
nonheteroskedasticity: 0 (these last two are to be expected!)
which seems to be evidence against the "choice of negative argument.
-Robert Dawson
.
.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at:
. http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ .
=================================================================
