With a one sided test, we might want to assess if a sample mean is greater than some theoretical mean (or the other way round):

$H_A: \mu_S > \mu_T $

What confuses me is that even for one-sided test the Null-hypothesis is described as equality between the means, i.e.: $H_0: \mu_S = \mu_T $ . Why is that? Would the opposite of $H_A$ in this case not be that the our sample mean is either equal OR smaller than the theoretical value, i.e. $H_0: \mu_T \geq \mu_S $?


3 Answers 3


This is a common approach in some introductory statistics textbooks. The alternative hypothesis can be directional (e.g., $H_a : \mu > \mu_0$) or non-directional (e.g., $H_a : \mu \ne \mu_0$), but the null hypothesis is always written as an equality (e.g., $H_0 : \mu = \mu_0$).

Your evaluation is correct: this would be the mutually exclusive alternative only for the non-directional test. The appropriate mutually exclusive option for the first alternative hypothesis above would properly be $H_0 : \mu \le \mu_0$.

So, ¿why do textbook authors sometimes just always write the null with the equality sign? Well, it comes down to what you can (and cannot) draw. I can draw a picture of a hypothetical world where the population mean is a given value (say $\mu_0$). I can sketch the normal curve, indicate the center is at $\mu_0$, and I'm good to go. What I can't do is draw infinitely many other such curves were $\mu \le \mu_0$.

OK...but ¿won't the $P$-values be different if I drew different curves? Yes, they would, but if you conduct a thought-experiment of what the new $P$-value would be if you did have a normal curve with a shifted mean, that new $P$-value will always be less than the one you calculated with the fixed null hypothesis.

And in the end, technically, I can't calculate a separate $P$-value for the infinite options indicated in $H_0: \mu \le \mu_0$, but I can calculate one for $H_0 : \mu = \mu_0$. (Well, not if we aren't going down a Bayesian path...)**

Hope this helps justify the pedagogic rationale behind this (seemingly) wrong conventional notation.

**This comment is based on the more simplistic definition of $P$-value used in most introductory statistics textbook. A more general definition of the $P$-value can account for this, and is described in another answer below.

  • $\begingroup$ Very helpful! I find it very important (and very instructive) to care about such details too, so thank you:-)! Practically however, when I conduct a one-sided test, this then implies that H_0 gets rejected when equality does not hold if I understand you correctly (because only then we can calculate a specific p-value)? $\endgroup$
    – user24544
    Apr 22, 2018 at 14:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Let's say we have a $p=.022$ with a one-sided test $H_0 : \mu \ge 0$. This means our test statistic is a negative value. If we have any value for $\mu$ greater than 0, say, 0.5, the test statistic will be even farther away from the mean, thus with a lower $P$-value. So, if you reject with $H_0 : \mu = 0$, you would reject with $H_0 : \mu \ge 0$. $\endgroup$
    – Gregg H
    Apr 22, 2018 at 14:51
  • $\begingroup$ Gregg, I would modify your penultime paragraph. See Scortchi's answer. ;) $\endgroup$ Apr 23, 2018 at 10:45

@GreggH's answer is excellent, but seems, in the penultimate paragraph, to hint at something fishy going on. In fact a formal definition of p-values takes this kind of situation into account.

When the null hypothesis is composite, specifying a set of values $\Theta_0$ for the unknown parameter $\theta$, a valid p-value $p(x)=\alpha$ (where $x$ is the observed data) is one which has a distribution function at $\alpha$ that does not exceed $\alpha$ whatever the value of $\theta$ might be (within $\Theta_0$):

$$\Pr_\theta \left[ p(X)\leq\alpha \right] \leq \alpha \quad \forall \theta \in \Theta_0, \ \forall\alpha\in[0,1]$$

One way of ensuring validity is simply to construct the p-value as the supremum of the probability that a test statistic $T$ exceeds or equals its observed value $t$ over all values of $\theta$ within $\Theta_0$:

$$p(x) = \sup_{\theta\in\Theta_0} \Pr_\theta\left[T\geq t\right]$$

In many cases the location of the supremum can easily be seen to be at the boundary with the alternative hypothesis, so there's no difference between testing $H_0:\theta=\theta_0$ or $H_0: \theta\leq\theta_0$ vs $H1:\theta>\theta_0$.

† In general $\theta$ may be a vector, say $(\phi,\lambda$), with one component, say $\phi$, being the parameter of interest, & the other, say $\lambda$, being a nuisance parameter; another way to construct a valid p-value is to condition on a statistic that's sufficient for $\lambda$ when $\phi=\phi_0$.


In conclusion, it appears to be a matter of convention, whether to write the null hypothesis as $H_0 : \mu_s = \mu_t$ or $H_0 : \mu_s <= \mu_t$ (opposite of alternative).


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.