About Us

John H wrote in message . ..
On 3 Mar 2004 05:27:33 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message . ..
On 2 Mar 2004 12:02:01 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"John H" wrote in message

None would be so bold as to compare their meager intellectual capacity
with your's, Harry. You have demonstrated your acumen and intellectual
integrity repeatedly. Who could hope to compare?

He just plucks these little gems from one of those "self improvement"
sections of Reader's Digest. Extensive personal research has shown that
86.7% of those who have read DH Lawrence extensively have required from
three to five years of therapy in order to rejoin society. :-)

Please post the processes used to obtain the above research numbers,
as well as exactly what type of research performed.

He may have used the

He may have used COCHRAN'S APPROXIMATION TO THE BEHRENS-FISHER
STUDENTS' T-TEST. This would probably be appropriate for answering
the question,b'asskisser. Read the following carefully, and notice
that all the available background data must be used. Please pay
particular attention to Subpart 3, b'asskisser. This is where you will
find the information on the necessary degrees of freedom.

Subpart 1. In general. Subpart 2 describes Cochran's
approximation to the Behrens-Fisher Students' t-test. Subpart 3
presents the standard t-tables at the 0.05 level of significance.

Subp. 2. Cochran's Approximation to the Behrens-Fisher
Students' t-test. Using all the available background data (nb
readings), calculate the background mean (XB) and background
variance (sB2). For the single monitoring well under
investigation (nm reading), calculate the monitoring mean (Xm)
and monitoring variance (sm2).

For any set of data (X1, X2, ... Xn) the mean is calculated
by:
X1 + X2 ... + Xn
-
X = ________________
n

and the variance is calculated by:
_ _ _
(X1 - X)2 + (X2 - X)2 ... + (Xn - X)2

s2 = ___________________________________
n-1

where "n" denotes the number of observations in the set of data.

The t-test uses these data summary measures to calculate a
t-statistic (t*) and a comparison t-statistic (tc). The t*
value is compared to the tc value and a conclusion reached as to
whether there has been a statistically significant change in any
indicator parameter.

The t-statistic for all parameters except pH and similar
monitoring parameters is:

If the value of this t-statistic is negative then there is
no significant difference between the monitoring data and
background data. It should be noted that significantly small
negative values may be indicative of a failure of the assumption
made for test validity or errors have been made in collecting
the background data.

The t-statistic (tc), against which t* will be compared,
necessitates finding tB and tm from standard (one-tailed) tables
where,

tB = t-tables with (nB-1) degrees of freedom, at the 0.05
level of significance.

tm = t-tables with (nm-1) degrees of freedom, at the 0.05
level of significance.

Finally, the special weightings WB and Wm are defined as:
sB2 sm2

WB = ___ and WM = ___

nB nm

and so the comparison t-statistic is:
WBtB + Wmtm

tc = ___________

WB + Wm

The t-statistic (t*) is now compared with the comparison
t-statistic (tc) using the following decision-rule:

If t* is equal to or larger than tc, then conclude that
there most likely has been a significant increase in this
specific parameter.

If t* is less than tc, then conclude that most likely there
has not been a change in this specific parameter.

The t-statistic for testing pH and similar monitoring
parameters is constructed in the same manner as previously
described except the negative sign (if any) is discarded and the
caveat concerning the negative value is ignored. The standard
(two-tailed) tables are used in the construction tc for pH and
similar monitoring parameters.

If t* is equal to or larger than tc then conclude that
there most likely has been a significant increase (if the
initial t* had been negative, this would imply a significant
decrease). If t* is less than tc, then conclude that there most
likely has been no change.

A further discussion of the test may be found in
Statistical Methods (Sixth Edition, section 4.14) by G.W.
Snedecor and W.G. Cochran, or Principles and Procedures of
Statistics (First Edition, section 5.8) by R.G.D. Steel and J.H.
Torrie.

Subp. 3. Standard T-Tables 0.05 Level of Significance1.

Standard T-Tables 0.05 Level of Significance1
t-values t-values
Degrees of Freedom (one-tail) (two-tail)

1 6.314 12.706
2 2.920 4.303
3 2.353 3.182
4 2.132 2.776
5 2.015 2.571
6 1.943 2.447
7 1.895 2.365
8 1.860 2.306
9 1.833 2.262
10 1.812 2.228
11 1.796 2.201
12 1.782 2.179
13 1.771 2.160
14 1.761 2.145
15 1.753 2.131
16 1.746 2.120
17 1.740 2.110
18 1.734 2.101
19 1.729 2.093
20 1.725 2.086
21 1.721 2.080
22 1.717 2.074
23 1.714 2.069
24 1.711 2.064
25 1.708 2.060
30 1.697 2.042
40 1.684 2.021

1Adopted from Table III of Statistical Tables for
Biological, Agricultural, and Medical Research (1947, R.A.
Fisher and F. Yates).

STAT AUTH: MS s 116.07 subds 4,4b

HIST: 9 SR 115
Current as of 11/06/03
John H

Uh, hate to disappoint you, John, but as usual, you are talking out of
your ass again. I asked you to "please post the processes used to
obtain the above research numbers,
as well as exactly what type of research performed."
You come back with "he MAY have used". I didn't ask what he may have
used, I asked what he DID use. You may not understand this, from your
pasted post, I'd suspect not, but there are many, many statistical
processes that may have been used. NOW, I want to know what process
JOHN used to come up with that data, and the references. That is what
I asked for, was it not? Did you give me that information? NO

b'asskisser, do you always mean *exactly* what you say? Do you not,
sometimes, expect people to understand what you are *trying* to say
even though you aren't completely precise? Like, for example, if you
misspell a few words, or use them incorrectly, don't you expect people
to overlook that? Don't you expect that even when you are telling them
how *stupid* they are?

Perhaps I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Giving ME the benefit of doubt? Haahaaa!!! You have NO MORE CLUE about
statistical processes than the man in the moon, yet you TRIED to come
off here like you do! Now, WHY did you even bother to post Cochran's
approximation? I truly don't understand. Are you under the impression
that that was what was used? I'm really quite curious, here. Why DID
You post that particular analysis?

On 4 Mar 2004 06:20:31 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message . ..
On 3 Mar 2004 05:27:33 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message . ..
On 2 Mar 2004 12:02:01 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"John H" wrote in message

None would be so bold as to compare their meager intellectual capacity
with your's, Harry. You have demonstrated your acumen and intellectual
integrity repeatedly. Who could hope to compare?
snipped
b'asskisser, do you always mean *exactly* what you say? Do you not,
sometimes, expect people to understand what you are *trying* to say
even though you aren't completely precise? Like, for example, if you
misspell a few words, or use them incorrectly, don't you expect people
to overlook that? Don't you expect that even when you are telling them
how *stupid* they are?

Perhaps I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Giving ME the benefit of doubt? Haahaaa!!! You have NO MORE CLUE about
statistical processes than the man in the moon, yet you TRIED to come
off here like you do! Now, WHY did you even bother to post Cochran's
approximation? I truly don't understand. Are you under the impression
that that was what was used? I'm really quite curious, here. Why DID
You post that particular analysis?

Purely, and I mean purely like in 100% pure, purely to get your
reaction.

I needed a chuckle on this damp Thursday morning.

Thank you!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote in message . ..
On 4 Mar 2004 06:20:31 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message . ..
On 3 Mar 2004 05:27:33 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message . ..
On 2 Mar 2004 12:02:01 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"John H" wrote in message

None would be so bold as to compare their meager intellectual capacity
with your's, Harry. You have demonstrated your acumen and intellectual
integrity repeatedly. Who could hope to compare?
snipped
b'asskisser, do you always mean *exactly* what you say? Do you not,
sometimes, expect people to understand what you are *trying* to say
even though you aren't completely precise? Like, for example, if you
misspell a few words, or use them incorrectly, don't you expect people
to overlook that? Don't you expect that even when you are telling them
how *stupid* they are?

Perhaps I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Giving ME the benefit of doubt? Haahaaa!!! You have NO MORE CLUE about
statistical processes than the man in the moon, yet you TRIED to come
off here like you do! Now, WHY did you even bother to post Cochran's
approximation? I truly don't understand. Are you under the impression
that that was what was used? I'm really quite curious, here. Why DID
You post that particular analysis?

Purely, and I mean purely like in 100% pure, purely to get your
reaction.

I needed a chuckle on this damp Thursday morning.

Thank you!

No problem, I always try to react when someone tries to act like the
know something of a particular subject, and DO NOT.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
viking ship plans ripoff	Boris Beizer	General	0	December 22nd 03 05:05 PM
On Topic: Anniversary of Jack London's death	Harry Krause	General	0	November 23rd 03 12:17 AM
Parker Death Trap	akheel	General	7	September 29th 03 06:19 PM
Death be not proud	Don ßailey	General	0	September 29th 03 03:07 PM

Menu

About Us