Timeline for Does p-value ever depend on the alternative?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 14 at 22:34 | history | edited | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Feb 1 at 18:32 | history | edited | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 256 characters in body
|
| Feb 1 at 18:23 | history | edited | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 256 characters in body
|
| Jul 4, 2023 at 22:35 | history | edited | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 534 characters in body
|
| Mar 16, 2023 at 10:56 | history | edited | User1865345 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 6 characters in body
|
| Nov 12, 2022 at 4:31 | comment | added | User1865345 | Courtesy to @RichardHardy, came across this ingenious treatment. This formalism should be universally used as the total ordering aka the evidentiary ordering is more unequivocal than the more conventional extreme. Already +1. | |
| Nov 12, 2022 at 4:20 | history | edited | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 66 characters in body
|
| Jan 28, 2022 at 10:49 | comment | added | Christian Hennig | @RichardHardy (&Ben) Just to add some confusion: A nice example in which evidential ordering is hard to define is sequential testing, in which one might stop conditionally on having achieved significance, but having not stopped at a certain time point (because at this point the result wasn't significant) one may achieve stronger significance later, all results adjusted appropriately. See itschancy.wordpress.com/2019/02/05/… | |
| Jan 27, 2022 at 1:26 | history | edited | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added diagram
|
| Jan 26, 2022 at 20:59 | history | edited | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Jan 26, 2022 at 15:28 | comment | added | Richard Hardy | That was technical... But helpful nonetheless. But technical! | |
| Jan 26, 2022 at 7:34 | history | edited | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Jan 26, 2022 at 0:08 | history | answered | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |