# Tag Info

2

So the models are $H_0$: always get 0, and $H_1$: obtain 0 with probability 1/2 or 1 with probability 1/2. your question is equivalent to can we test whether a coin has heads on each side by tossing it many times. It’s pretty clear that we have pretty good power to reject $H_0$ when it’s false with only 5 or so flips.

0

You may want to calculate the independence between two variables, A and B (test of independence) or if the distribution of A given B=B1 (first column) fits the distribution of A given B=B2 (second column). That is if P(A|B=B1)=P(A|B=B2). The two calculations are slightly different, the test of independence takes into account the differences of both ...

2

The result is called Craig's theorem. Named after the 1943 note Note on the Independence of Certain Quadratic Forms by Craig. See this paper for details and history.

0

To prove the independence and dependence of those. You may use the moment generating function (MGF). Hints: in page 10, of this document: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-443-statistics-for-applications-spring-2015/lecture-notes/MIT18_443S15_LEC1.pdf

1

"Anti-lingering" Comment: Your stated contingency table is TBL as below: TBL = rbind(c(13,19,28,40), c(7,11,22,60)) TBL [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [1,] 13 19 28 40 [2,] 7 11 22 60 Verifying that both rows sum to $100,$ as stated: rowSums(TBL) [1] 100 100 A chi-squared test in R, shows significant departure from homogeneity at 5% ...

2

To answer the question about correlation, we can note that $\frac{X_{(1)}}{X_{(n)}}=\frac{X_{(1)}/\theta}{X_{(n)}/\theta}=\frac{Y_{(1)}}{Y_{(n)}}$ where $Y_1,\ldots,Y_n$ are i.i.d uniform on $(0,1)$. As such the distribution of the ratio is free of $\theta$, hence it is an ancillary statistic. Moreover $X_{(n)}$ is a complete sufficient statistic for the $U(... 2 You need the joint distribution of$X_{(1)}$and$X_{(n)}$. see here for the derivation in the case of Unif(0,1). The joint density is $$f_{X_{1},X_{n}}(u,v)=n! \frac{(v-u)^{n-2}}{(n-2)!} \theta^{-n}$$ You can find the expected value of any function of the two random variables by integrating the function of$u$and$v$over the two-dimensional integral with ... 0 You could try independent component analysis, see Making sense of independent component analysis. More information. 0 So a game has been played 1554 times and you wonder what share of these uses happened by a good and how many by a bad. This can be done via a binomial test. Let's say we observed the game being played by good 1254 times and by bad 300 times. binom.test says > binom.test(c(1254, 300)) Exact binomial test data: c(1254, 300) number of successes = 1254,... 4 For efficiency, use characteristic functions. Let$|\cdot|$denote the determinant. The following demonstration repeatedly evaluates the multinormal ($n$dimensional) integral in the form $$(2\pi)^{n/2}|T|^{n/2} = \int\cdots\int \exp\left(-\mathbf{x}\,T\,\mathbf{x}^\prime/2\right)\,\mathrm{d}^n\mathrm{x}$$ where$T$is any symmetric matrix (with real or ... 1 Let's first tackle dependence versus correlation and then we'll add causation into the mix. There are exceptions to almost every rule, some of them worth only a minimal footnote and you should start worrying about those exceptions only after you've been exposed to what is true as a rule. Correlation is one type of dependence. Dependence is a broader concept. ... 2 Suppose you have$n = 1000$observations from$\mathsf{Pois}(\lambda = 5).$[Note: in some circumstances, one might estimate$\lambda$directly from these data, as 4.968, but that estimate is not valid for our test whether the data fit a Poisson distribution.] set.seed(2021) x = rpois(1000, 5) table(x) x 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 0 This is an interesting question. You cannot check this assumption before analysis because the changepoints make the data non-stationary and so standard stationary methods for assessing independence/correlation are no longer valid. The best way is to perform a changepoint analysis and then look at the residuals (remove the time varying mean/variance) to see ... 0 Your confusion may stem from the definitions of "outcome" vs "event", and from the difference between running a single random experiment vs several independent random experiments. A random experiment is an experiment whose outcome is uncertain, in the sense that if the experiment is repeated, the outcome can change. In your example, the ... 1 Depends on what you mean by probability. If you are a frequentist, then conditional probability P(A|B) means something akin to how much B causes A. If you are Bayesian, P(A|B) only measures the logical connection between B and A. To sum up, for a Bayesian, the answer to your question is yes, for a frequentist, it is no. For ones, who are a mix of both, it is ... -1 No, not in general. A covariance of zero between two random variables does not necessarily imply that they are independent. However, the statement is true if the variables are normally distributed. 3 The following is a counterexample Say the following events (for binary values of X, Y and Z) have equal probabilities. X Y Z probability 0 1 1 1/4 1 0 1 1/4 0 0 0 1/4 1 1 0 1/4 Then$P(X=1) = P(X=0) = 0.5$and$P(Y=1) = P(Y=0) = 0.5$independent from$Z$. But$P(X| Y,Z) = \text{XOR}(Y,Z)$and not independent from$Y,Z$(where$\text{XOR}\$ refers ...

0

You argued with ... The question was how many students have a sister, not at least one sister. The term “at least one” means “1 or more”, so: If someone has a sister, it has indeed at least one sister. Reversely, if someone has at least one sister, he indeed has a sister. So these two statements are equivalent, and the result 120/300 is correct.

0

Yes, 40 is included because those students have at least one sister; naturally, they're in the set of students that has at least one sister (i.e. 120 students). This means, there are 80 students with at least one sister and no brothers.

Top 50 recent answers are included