The rest have selected no more than 2 of the nine as coming from normal populations. Even my faculty colleagues have been tricked!
>
>Rich Einsporn
>U. of Akron
>
>
>> >On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Paul Swank wrote:
>> >
>> >> I couldn't help wanting to add my
as
coming from normal populations. Even my faculty colleagues have been tricked!
Rich Einsporn
U. of Akron
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Paul Swank wrote:
I couldn't help wanting to add my own 2 cents to the discussion about statistical
errors because I have always thought that people put too much
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Donald Burrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Paul R Swank wrote:
I prefer the ocular test myself.
Were you referring to the intraocular traumatic test?
(It strikes you between the eyes.)
The only use of alpha-level testing I have seen which
I
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Paul R Swank wrote:
I prefer the ocular test myself.
Were you referring to the intraocular traumatic test?
(It strikes you between the eyes.)
-- Don.
Donald
I couldn't help wanting to add my own 2 cents to the discussion about statistical errors because I have always thought that people put too much faith in formal tests of assumptions. When the tests of assumptions are most sensitive to violations is when they are of less concern, when the sample
Maybe the most common mistake is omission of graphic eye-balling.
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Paul Swank wrote:
I couldn't help wanting to add my own 2 cents to the discussion about statistical
errors because I have always thought that people put too much faith in formal tests
of assumptions
I prefer the ocular test myself.
At 12:16 PM 3/22/01 -0700, Harold W Kerster wrote:
> Maybe the most common mistake is omission of graphic eye-balling.
>
>On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Paul Swank wrote:
>
>> I couldn't help wanting to add my own 2 cents to the discussion about statisti
Herman Rubin wrote:
Proportional representation for electors will never come,
because it will greatly weaken the party machinery. Both
parties prefer the situation where one goes after the votes
of large states, or swing states, writing off the ones
which cannot be won. With even
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
P.G.Hamer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since the vote difference between Bush and Gore falls within the margin
of error for the counting process, declaring the winner is
mathematically indeterminable within any reasonable degree of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since the vote difference between Bush and Gore falls within the margin
of error for the counting process, declaring the winner is
mathematically indeterminable within any reasonable degree of
scientific confidence.
Since we cannot know who has won, the Florida
On 9 Dec 2000 17:28:28 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hayden)
wrote:
It's not clear how you split 25 electors among 2 candidates when you
don't know the popular vote, nor if you assume it was a tie. (You
might then have a lawsuit over which elector will be split in two!-)
There are lots of
6)In addition, what we really need is for some _feedback_. Give
the voter a
device that will read the ballot, and tell the voter what will be
recorded,
_before_ adding to the tally. That way, they will have increased
confidence that
their vote will be recorded as they want. Do we
Since the vote difference between Bush and Gore falls within the margin
of error for the counting process, declaring the winner is
mathematically indeterminable within any reasonable degree of
scientific confidence.
Since we cannot know who has won, the Florida Legislature should use
their power
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Since the vote difference between Bush and Gore falls within the margin
of error for the counting process, declaring the winner is
mathematically indeterminable within any reasonable degree of
scientific confidence.
Since we cannot know who
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since the vote difference between Bush and Gore falls within the margin
of error for the counting process, ...
Is it, indeed? How do you define "margin of error" for this process?
... declaring the winner is mathematically indeterminable ...
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jerry Dallal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree with those who would use a binomial model for the
overall vote totals to describe the uncertainty in the Florida vote
count. (This constitutes the Type III error discussed in another
thread--the right answer
There seems to be some misunderstanding in the press about a fundamental
difference between a sample of a larger population and a complete
census.
J. A. Paulos in his NY Times article We're Measuring Bacteria With a
Yardstick'
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/22/opinion/22PAUL.html
stated:
"Not
it might be that simple probability theory is not a good vehicle for
talking about the error(S) that can/have occurred in the election (like
florida) but, the reality is that we know for sure that there are several
sources of error that can and do occur
1. voter error (misplaced marks,
simply put, the problem is that the original census is not pristine - not
unaltered. it is not simply a matter of separating clearly marked red cards
from clearly marked black cards. therefore, tho it is theoretically
possible to count well marked objects with close to zero sampling error, the
Gene Gallagher writes:
Neither of these authors explicitly use the binomial distribution (but
Paulos certainly alludes to it), but in last Sunday's Boston Globe, two
letters to the editor made the argument that if the vote difference in a
state like Florida is within sqrt(n)/2 votes (about 1225
- Forwarded message from Gene Gallagher -
There seems to be some misunderstanding in the press about a fundamental
difference between a sample of a larger population and a complete
census.
- End of forwarded message from Gene Gallagher -
Possibly, but I don't think the Florida
21 matches
Mail list logo
