>All the numeric output looks OK, but the statement that the alternative > >hypothesis is accepted seems rather strange. > > I think you misread it. It says alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0 > which should be read as alternative hypothesis: "true mean is not equal to 0" > not > alternative hypothesis: true, mean is not equal to 0 > > Duncan Murdoch > Interestingly, I had a student fooled by a similar re-statement of the alternative hypothesis in R output (although I don't think it was the t-test) just last week. At the time, I wondered 1) Why the null AND the alternative weren't stated (guessed the answer was parsimony) 2) Why if only one was stated, the convention was to re-state the alternative rather than the null hypothesis. ans 3) Since technically the hypothesis is made a priori, why is it not re-iterated until AFTER producing the test results on the output.
I think it is this last logic that my student and Patrick. Shouldn't the hypothesis re-statement preceed the output? Rob Baer ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
