Timeline for How to perform Student's t-test having only sample size, sample average and population average are known?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7 at 3:34 | comment | added | User1865345 | The original link was dead; I have added an archived version. For the sake of surety, you please check whether the pdf is correct or not @whuber. | |
| Apr 7 at 3:31 | history | edited | User1865345 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 44 characters in body
|
| May 16, 2015 at 19:36 | history | rollback | whuber♦ |
Rollback to Revision 4
|
|
| May 16, 2015 at 17:16 | comment | added | Tim | @whuber but this is a different paper then Wall et al., isn't it..? The link I found seems to be the Wall et al. paper (?) | |
| May 15, 2015 at 15:53 | comment | added | whuber♦ | Thank you, @Tim. I have replaced your link with the one offered in a comment by ars, which goes to a free, full download on arxiv.org. | |
| May 15, 2015 at 15:52 | history | edited | whuber♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 17 characters in body
|
| May 15, 2015 at 8:57 | comment | added | Tim | @whuber I added a working link to pdf scan of the paper you seem to refer to. Check if it is correct. Btw, thanks for pointing this paper! | |
| May 15, 2015 at 8:56 | history | edited | Tim | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added a working link to pdf
|
| Jan 25, 2014 at 1:29 | comment | added | whuber♦ | @Glen_b On the contrary, most likely I missed something. I'll pay attention to that the next time I need this paper, but in the meantime the difference in constants does not affect the analysis here. | |
| Jan 25, 2014 at 0:19 | comment | added | Glen_b | This is great. However, I'm curious why you applied formula (3) (which comes from Edelman), which Wall et al describe as "wider than necessary". Toward the end of the paragraph immediately prior to mentioning (3) they use 4.84 (exactly 1 smaller than 5.84) for a 90% interval, which comes from their equation (4). No doubt I missed something. | |
| Sep 26, 2012 at 12:57 | history | edited | whuber♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
TeX
|
| Aug 20, 2010 at 14:16 | comment | added | whuber♦ | @ars: Yes, it is: the URL in the subtitle confirms it. Thanks for finding it. | |
| Aug 20, 2010 at 6:07 | comment | added | ars | Thanks - any chance this is the Rodriguez paper you're thinking of? arxiv.org/abs/bayes-an/9504001 | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 0:30 | history | edited | Rob Hyndman | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Add jstor link for reference.
|
| Aug 19, 2010 at 0:29 | comment | added | Rob Hyndman | Amazing. I didn't know that. Thanks for the reference. | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 14:51 | comment | added | whuber♦ | Yes it is! That's why it's well worth studying: challenges to our intuition are exceptionally educational. I first learned of this from a clear paper on Carlos Rodriguez' (SUNY Albany) Web page but I couldn't find it this morning: it appears the server is down. Try Googling "carlos rogriguez statistics" later. (His paper is supposed to be at omega.albany.edu/8008/confint.html , but this might be an old URL.) | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 14:41 | comment | added | user28 | That is counter-intuitive! | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 14:33 | history | answered | whuber♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |