On 8 Nov 2006 11:08:22 -0800, "Reef Fish" <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Richard Ulrich wrote: > > On 5 Nov 2006 17:55:46 -0800, "Reef Fish" > > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > [snip]
RU > > > > umm. You still need to get a test value, subtract, then double.... > > which I described usefully. Bob was not paying attention, too eager > > to criticize. RF > > WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. > > 1. For testing with a given alpha, such as a two-tailed test with F, > you find F(.025) and F(.975) before you get the test value, > because > you DON'T have to see if the numerator is greater or smaller. You > KNOW the degrees of freedom of the F.
I can apologize, and clarify.
No doubt I confused Bob by saying "test value" instead of saying "two-tailed p-value."
If you want a two-tailed p-value -- which is the modern standard, instead of simply 'flagging' the test result -- you need to double the smaller extreme.
Here are a *couple* of conventions -- presenting p-values; and doubling a one-tailed value to get a two-tailed value.
RU > > > By now, he should recognize that he *often* does not understand > > what's being said. Why else is it, that every 'fight' in the stat > > groups features Bob? RF > > Everytime you say I don't understand, it's always because I was at > several steps AHEAD of you and understand every word of yours to > be ERRORS resulting from your lack of education.
Your next step, Bob, is to consider how to compute the "p-value", which everyone wants these days. Catch up.
[snip] > > You REMAIN ignorant, and a malpracticing Quack, Richard Ulrich.
That remains absurd. Stream-of-consciousness garbage.
> > That may be an insult you deserve -- but hardly gratuitous!
Yes. Gratuitous. Nobody asks for this, and 10,000 readers do not want to see it. *If* I were so obviously 'ignorant', nobody would *need* Reef Fish Bob Ling to belabor the point.
The only 'end' that it seems to serve is an ongoing intention to bully and intimidate. Bad net-citizenship.