@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
I agree Cathy. A lock of some kind on the older posts would cause little harm and it would cut down on this sort of stuff My perception is that responses to really old posts generally fall into one of two categories – the please-send-me-one-of-those-too kind and posts like this one.
Posts like this give the impression that all Suzanne did was quickly read the first post and ignore mine as well as the date of the original and PM did the same thing to me and to Suzanne…still it is nice to know that someone agrees with me even if it took them 6 years to get around to saying so. :-)
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Dewars????
As in
Sir James Dewar
Is a better man that you are
Because none of you a!!!!
Can liquify gasses
…somehow a tall cold glass of O2 doesn’t sound particularly appealing….
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
It is truly astonishing what one can learn by opening up a random post on this forum…I guess 2003 was some kind of vintage year since we seem to have revived a number of them from that time.
As for new information – I never knew that Gosset worked for Bell labs. If that’s true then are we to assume the “t” in t- test was short for …telephone????? All of the books I’ve read say Gosset developed the t-test while working for Guinness Brewery back in the 19th century (and that it was Fisher who named the distribution the t-distribution for reasons unknown).
The “fact” that averages of 5 values from any kind of an underlying distribution will result in normally distributed values is also quite interesting and also contrary to most everything I’ve read. While it is true that distributions of averages will tend to normal the number of data point per average needed to make this happen will vary depending on the underlying distribution – for some extreme value distributions the number per average can easily reach 100.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
It is like a total trip, you know, like running down your own thing, like way cool, you know, mad rad skilz, like total deep blue hero stuff….except when, you know, like it isn’t then it’s like bad karma, like no way man, like valley girls on steroids, you know?
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
I suppose you could look at it as responding to an 8 year old post. However, it could also be viewed as nothing more that the continuation of a tradition. Other than a few outliers in 2002 (Anikumr, Aush, Carnell, Gabriel, Emre and RR) and 2006 (Suhail) all of the other posts have been on odd numbered years. Since 2009 is coming to a close perhaps the most recent poster just wanted to make sure that 2009 would not go unrepresented.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Here’s one that is bound to do wonders for your project:
“Do a better job or we will render your body for its fat content and ship you as part of the next fuel consignment”
Read Deming and pay heed to his observations concerning sloganeering….or you can just remember the short version
“Slogan on the Wall – Quality’s Gonna Fall”
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
The easiest way to deal with problems of this type is to use the Finagle Phudge Transform Factor – take the data, multiply each data point by 0, and add a number from a normal random number generator to the result. The data will now be normally distributed and you can apply any test requiring normally distributed data.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Time check: At 9:00 AM EST it was a minute and 20 seconds to get to the discussion forum, 20 seconds to open a reply to this thread and 35 seconds before the post a message window opened.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
It seems to be all over the map. Yesterday I gave up trying to log on. This morning, about an hour ago, it was slow but at least it was accessable. Right now, its response time is about what I get on other sites.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Probably the biggest issue with opportunities is their incessant knocking. There was a time when opportunities were discrete and civil and they would only knock once. Back in that golden age if you chose not to answer when they did knock then they would quietly go away and bother someone else in some other place or time.
Today, however, civility is a thing of the past and they, like every other obnoxious gadabout, insist on constantly interrupting with their knocking at the most inopportune times (like when you were daydreaming, reminiscing about the halcyon days of your youth, enjoying that second tequila sunrise, etc.).
I’ve written numerous angry letters to the Times about this subject but they, with their progress-at-any-price-anything-to-make-a-buck mindset have refused to give my opinions equal time. In the world of today opportunities seem to have convinced the current administration that knocking at any time is some kind of right of theirs so the only thing for it would appear to be an iPod set on high volume or a very good pair of ear plugs.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
BTDT,
Old Stuff???? Just remember, every book is new until you have read it and I’d say the same has to be true of mathematical methods. After providing the correct partial derivatives I was hoping Jon would tell us more about the standard deviation formula since I had never seen it.
Thanks for the additional information.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
The partial derivatives of the expression Y = 2*X1 +3*X2^2 with respect to X1 and X2 are:
dY/dX1 = 2
dY/dX2 = 6*X2
so if we plug these values into the equation you are using for the standard deviation of Y this would be
sqrt( (2*.1)^2 +(6*3*.2)^2) = 3.606
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
The script for the Monty Python skit “Argument Clinic” probably qualifies:
“Is this where I can have an argument?”
“I told you once.”
“No you didn’t”
“Yes, I did.”
“You most certainly did not.”
…etc.
I’m sure you can find the entire script somewhere on the net – check Google.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Sigmas are sold in matched sets of 6. If he only has 5 for sale then you are looking either at remaindered/seconds stock or matieral that has suffered damage in transit.. If the lack of 6 is due to shipping damage then the quality/integrity of the remaining 5 is doubtful
If it is truly remaindered then hidden damage shouldn’t be an issue and you may be able to find a spare Sigma at places like Big Lots. If you go this route the thing to remember is that the replacement won’t exactly match the other 5 Sigmas which means the set will only provide the output expected from 4.5 Sigmas.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Chinese????? Sorry no. It’s a Taguchi design. The inner array defines the way the characters are combined/pitted with/against one another and the outer array consists of the possible scenario combinations. Rumor has it that the concept for combining actors and plots in this fashion grew out of one of those legendary after hours tequila fests Stan, Darth, Mike et.al. reminisce about from time to time. The story goes that this one was with a Hollywood producer who had just finished black belt training. :-)
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
The first problem is the fact that you have analyzed data. Data that has been analyzed is no longer raw data. Analyzing analyzed data is akin to re-cooking a meal and the results will be pretty much what one would expect after such an effort. (This is much like the problem of what to do with ground water. Water that has been ground, usually by the blades of a hydroelectric turbine, isn’t good for much of anything except making shaved ice for snow cones and it is the reason the far west has a shortage of water for growing food.) So, before you do anything else you will need to go out and gather fresh (raw) data to analyze.
Once you have a supply of raw data you will be able to give some thought to the commands you might want to issue to it. Commanding data, like commanding troops, is more of an art than a science but there are a few generalities worth remembering.
1. Know the personal history of the data. Knowing the background of the data will guide you with respect to appropriate commands. For example, if the data is nominal you need to remember nominal data rarely does things by the numbers so issuing commands requiring a detailed numeric response will result in nothing but confusion.
2. Does your data seem to want to form up into smaller groups or do you have a bunch of militant individualists? Data that naturally sticks together will be easier to command than data that doesn’t. In addition, the performance you get from the groups of data will exhibit less variability than that of the individuals.
You can command the data to form up in as many columns as you wish. I usually let the individual raw data point assemble in whatever column it thinks best describes its point of origin or reason for being recruited. Once all of the individual data points have picked their respective columns I’ll order them to line up in descending order or, if they are nominal, alphabetically.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
I guess using “What” as a standard for comparison is a reasonable choice. Personally I prefer “Why” because it is shorter (in terms of letter count) and it has the ring of authority. “What” on the other hand, can easily be misinterpreted to mean nothing more than the fact that your hearing was impaired and you didn’t understand the statement/question.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Well, let’s work through the definitions
Traffic Light Scoreboard – a simple count of how many times drivers bust the lights at a given intersection during rush hour. Dashboard – what a driver slams into if he gets in an accident and isn’t wearing a seatbelt – can happen when you bust the lights.
Balance Score Board – an inventory sheet kept by the Bureau of Weights and Measures – typically used to judge scale weighting accuracy.
Mission Statement – basic info for a military spec op.
Complaint List from the QA depts – obviously the only one in the list that has anything to do with six sigma efforts.
Therefore the answer has to be e.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
If you already know about crossover designs and you know what they are used for then you know who uses them and why. Sit down with your advisor and ask him/her what you should do. If he/she is fresh out of ideas then get over to the local hospital and see if you can start a project with one of the doctors.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
This has always been my favorite:
” In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”
Mark Twain – Life on the Mississippi
a number of places that cite this quote replace “science” with “statistics”
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
White Belt – New Generic Label: Takin’ Names call ’em TN’s
Yellow Belt – New Generic Label: Kickin’ A!! call ’em KA’s
Yellow and white checked belt for someone with a white belt a yellow belt and Lean – New Generic Label: Kickin’ A!! and Takin’ Names call ’em KATN (Kay-Tin)
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Data with an example is much more difficult to deal with than data without an example. Data that is free of examples is data that is clean. Clean data is certain data, therefore any conclusions one might draw from such data are absolute and without error. However, if there are one or more examples in the data then the only way you can hope to use this kind of data as a basis for any conclusion is if you perform one or more ststistical tests on the data to remove or at least minimize the effect of the example. There are many ststistical tests one can use with example laden data – TARFU, FUBAR, FIGMO, and SWAG procedures are probably the best known tools but the best method for analysis of this kind of data is either generalized BWBS or the newer DATAFOG algorithms.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Yes, I tried posting last night and the post didn’t even make it to the list. This morning I noted two from you on the list but when I clicked on the second one it wasn’t there and I was returned to the post listings.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
According to the 30 greatest Albert Einstein quotes the only two that had anything to do with stupidity are:
1. Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe
2.The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
…nothing about hydorgen. You can find people attributing this quote to Einstein on various and sundry chatroom forums but on those sites that seem to have some kind of cross checking in place his name does not appear to be connected with that statement. According to quoteworld and a couple of other sites that turn of phrase is credited to Harlan Ellison
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Stevo’s almost right – 42 is, in fact, the answer to everything. If you only want a partial answer you should, as Stevo suggested, use one of its factors. 7 would be a good place to start but 42 is really what you should use.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Hayyup, thems was the days. ‘Member the onepointfive Stan-Reigle matches. Why minutes didn’t go by on the forum ‘fore one ‘er the ‘tother was flingin’ word an’ dense phrazology an’ threatin’ to expose the whole mess at some joint in Arizonee an’ moderator closed threads wuz thick as tick’s on a stray dog an’ then all the fightin’ over who worked where when an’who did what first when back in the day’s ‘fore they got all formal ‘bout callin’ the whole mess six sigma an’ the surprise that Stan wuz really a buncha people an’ Darth and Stan chimin’ in so often they even figgered in that comic strip over in Bloggsville…yup, the fizz has gone outta the forum for sure…too durn civilized now…ah progress ya know…..
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
You, of course, are assuming Ohio – what about the other possibilities – Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Mississippi, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, Utah, ans West Virginia?
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
It means your default settings for displayed digits in your stat program needs to be changed. In any event, 0.00 < .01 < .05 so you have signficance at 95% and at 99% and perhaps even higher.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
From time to time – I see that blogger Robin Barnwell ran afoul of the pseudo science crowd – it will be interesting to see if they pop up over here too.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
If you take a fir (we’ll assume it is a mature tree) and cut it down and trim it and find its center of mass you can make a teeter-totter out of it. If you place people of the right weight on either end of the trimmed fir trunk the whole thing should balance rather well. As for orientation, it really doesn’t matter. Teeter-totters work equally well in an east-west or a north south orientation. However, if you don’t want the sun in your eyes the north-south orientation would be the better choice.
Hope this helps.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
In the search engine in the upper right hand corner select “Discussion Forum” for the search and type in “public schools” in the ‘for’ box you will get 62 pages of listings of discussion threads on the topic of six sigma and public schools. Many of them have embedded links to other sites/discussions about the same thing.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
#3.14159 A picture is worth a thousand words – the minimum number of words needed to explain away the mess you made because you didn’t plot your data in the first place.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Hemingway a 6 Sigma author – this is definitely old news.
For Whom the Bell Tolls – A classic dissertation on the use and abuse of the normal distribution.
Islands in the (Data) Stream – An analysis of clustering
The Sum Also Rises – Analysis of the effect of the proper use of DMAIC on the bottom line
The Fifth Column – An introduction to the statistical functions on Excel spread sheets
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
As an aside, If you want to get some idea of the kinds of production errors that can occur go over to one of the currency auction house web sites or over on e-bay and look under the category “error notes” or “errors”.
The combination of QC and multiple inspections keeps most of these out of circulation. I don’t know if the Bureau of Printing and Engraving has tried anything other than this for defect minimization but I do have the impression that errors in later revisons of the U.S. notes show up with far less regularity than with notes whose revisions were in the 1970’s and 1980’s. (Notes, unlike coins, are not dated on a yearly basis – the date will refer to the first time that particular design was put in production. Subsequent small changes will be noted with a letter designation following the year. At some point someone will decide there have been enough small changes so the next revision will have a new year date… and then the process will repeat itself.)
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
It may be from the Minitab help file but, as Erik noted, you might want to look at Box, Hunter, Hunter Statistics For Experimenters, 1978, pp.97-102. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out this book was the source of the Minitab example.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Computers might make your life easier – it all depends on the temperment of the one you have. Ours is a real piece of work. When you ask him to do something like multiply two 10 digit numbers together he will start to mumble and roll his eyes and then sort of stand up and pull his shirt out of his pants and over his head and then he will spin around the room like a top and finally sit down, let his shirt fall back around his torso, stare off into space for a minute or two and then give you the answer. It’s not too bad if you only have to ask him for one or two calculations but if you have a lot of number crunching to do his antics can make for a really long day.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
….so if CTQ’s are those things Critical To Quaffing then we really don’t want a beer that will have 3.4 DPMO (Drunks Per Million Ounces) anything that weak wouldn’t make its first sale!
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Some Completely Pointless Methodology
Collect On Delivery
Everyone’s Crunching Numbers
More Insane Statistics
Can’t Compute Beans
Every Computer Offline
Extra Cash Required (for) My Forthcoming Divorce
Bunch Of Mistakes
Stop Expecting Results
Simply Outrageous Accuracy
Drop Fence Management – guys who manage the guys who give you money for stolen goods
SWAG – Scientific Wild A– Guessing
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
This1 is2 a3 very4 odd5 thread6.
Categorical Data Analysis – Agresti – pp. 126
Statistical Methods – Snedecor and Cochran pp. 18
Analysis of Binary Data – Cox and Snell pp. 19
Analysis of Messy Data – Milliken and Johnson pp. 22
The Cartoon Guide to Statistics – Gonick and Smith pp. 17
Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position – Deming – pp. 173
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Go to the blue bar at the top of this page. Search “Discussion Forum” and type in “rational subgroups” in the “for” section and click “Go” there are 294 entries and several of them have embedded links to articles/sites about rational subgroups.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
I think the common word for that kind of “correction” is cheating and, yes, you have biased your results.
I take an exam. The teacher checks my answers and provides me with a measure of my error rate. I take the exam back, correct all of the mistakes, and then demand a new calculation of the error rate – of the two error rates, the original, or the “revised” which is a measure of my knowledge at the time I took the test?
Your problem is the same – one of the “defects” surrounds the issue of correctly following instructions the first time. By allowing a “correction” you may be hiding a problem with respect to instruction clarity or something else that, if addressed properly, may result in a real improvement in the process.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
I’m not trying to be funny but it sounds to me like you have accomplished your goal.
Question: Now that they spend 25% less time in the office how has this absence impacted their productive effort?
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
It was about the victim of a cruel yet rather amusing hoax involving six sigma, the inn of sixth happiness, and the social correlations between the two. These correlations were identified using logistic regression. The forward to the article was written by a psychiatrist. Not surprisingly, because of the involvement of this practitioner in the social sciences, the concept of regression got completely lost in translation. This miscommunication exacerbated the confusion which was apparent in the discussion section of the paper where the author argued that data concerning abnormal responses to six sigma stimuli must be viewed as non-normal and therefore atypical and therefore only of interest to a very narrow segment of the medical field concerned with psycho-pharmacology.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Jim, you are referring to the Hawthorne Effect. The uncertainty principle applies to the precision and accuracy of certain combinations of simultaneous measurements made on very small objects such as electrons. In the case of the velocity and position of an electron it states it is impossible to make these two measurements simultaneously with unlimited accuracy.
In order for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to apply to people you would have to have a situation where closely observing a worker on the line would result in your inability to simultaneously determine his/her location on the line and the speed with which he/she was performing a particular task to some arbitrary degree of precision.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
While the simplified statement of the uncertainty principle is correct I think you need to remember the realm in which it is a concern – quantum physics. Unless you happen to live in the world of Mr. Tompkins in Paperback (a world where h, Plank’s constant, is approximately equal to 1 instead of its day-to-day value of 6 x 10**(-34)) I seriously doubt you will have to take this into account.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Sorry DD, they might but there is no guarantee that they will – that’s why you want to know the median and not the mean.
Example – the average salary at my company is $100,000.
By your reasoning half would be below $100,000 and half would be above.
The reality is that we have 10 people in the company. The boss makes $910,000/year and the other 9 make $10,000/year. Total salary – $1,000,000. Divide that by 10 and you get an average of $100,000…only we have 9 people below the average and 1 person above.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
What’s to interpret? If, as you stated, it’s qualitative data the numbers probably don’t mean much of anything. If it’s quantitative data then you have provided some descriptions of the distribution of the data.
Frankly this sounds like some kind of a homework problem where you need to read the chapter in order to understand what is meant by the word “interpret”.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Why would a person be speechless or bewildered when asked a question about basics? Every interview I’ve been on has usually included a number of questions of this type. When I get these I treat them for what they are – a freebie – an easy way to score some points in the opening round of discussion.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
What the warning is telling you is that your data is violating the requirements of the Chi-Square test. Under these circumstances you need to use something like Fisher’s Exact test in its place.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
SIGMA In all caps is a command issued to an attack dog.
So
1.1 SIGMA would be a command to the dog to attack and bite with a force of 110%.
Similarly
.5 SIGMA would be a command to attack with only 50% of the force normally employed
and, of course
2 SIGMA would command an attack twice the maximum. A command of 2 SIGMA would, under most circumstances be very MEAN.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Dear Sir, Please send me your information concerning the construction of the Philosopher Stone. If I have the instructions on building the Philosopher’s Stone I’m sure I can use it to generate enough money to purchase the Questionnaire. Also would appreciate knowing your sources for that journalistic Holy Grail.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
When reporting statistics concerning differences in means you usually want to report those details that will help the reader understand what it was you did. If I were writing your report I’d have a table that looked something like this: Mean 1 N1 Std1 Mean2 N2 Std2 t-value p-value
X1 11 S1 X2 22 S2 a.bc <.043
If there were no significant differences in the standard deviations and the test was using pooled variance, I’d drop the Std1 and Std2 and just have a single column for the pooled standard deviation.
Mean 1 N1 Mean2 N2 Pooled Std. t-value p-value
X1 11 X2 22 Sp a.bc <.043
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
wander – to roll, to move about aimlessly or without any destination, often in search of food or employment.
lust – to crave: have a craving, appetite, or great desire for
Soooooo …..wanderlust in six sigma would have to mean someone who has a great desire to move about aimlessly in search of employment so that you will have money to by things like popcorn. (see random walk)
….Heebeegeebee BB, if it’s salted and buttered I take some now……
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
The problem we have here Christina is “CL” can mean both Control Limits – which could be limits imposed externally by the customer and Confidence Limits – which are (typically) the 95% limits that are part of the physical properties of the process. In order for anyone to offer anything meaningful you will have to tell us what you and your customer mean by “CL”.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Anything Quality Colorado has posted on this site can be found by going to the upper right hand corner, selecting “Discussion Forum” in the left box and typing “Quality Colorado” in the right box.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
” How many angels can you get on the end of pin?” Surely the answer is obvious
1. Take 9 flights (30 angels in each flight)
2. Take mean of all these 9 flights ( you will have 30 mean flights) . These flights will consist of perfectly normal angel flights as per Central Limt Theorem.
If you then check the distribution of these flights with the Angel-Darling test you will find you can stuff any number of them into a bucket which can be transformed to the head of a pin! Threfore you can fit as many angels on the head of a pin as space, time, and transformations, will permit
I hope this helps
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
They don’t teach all that much.
If we assume you are using the royal “We” to refer to yourself then just because you only choose to use 5-10% of what you were taught doesn’t mean that everyone else shares your dilemma.
If you are using the “We” to refer to the global set of users of statistics then I would have to quote the author whose name escapes me at the moment and say ” It is well known that 47% of all statistics are made up on the spur of the moment.”
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Is there any chance the client was a U.S. railroad? Fred in railroad lingo is short for Flashing Rear End Device – it’s the warning light on the end of the train that has replaced the caboose. Not a bad choice really since FRED is a warning device and much of what one sees in Six Sigma efforts amounts to warnings of what will happen if processes aren’t changed.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
You took a sample of 100. The true population size is infinite. 100 does not equal infinity. The results of the t and the F test are
t = (.112 – 0)/(1.03/sqrt(100)) = 1.08
F = (1.03*1.03)/1*1 = 1.061
for 99 df a t of 1.08 at 95% is not signficant. For an F test with df = 100 and infinity an F of 1.061 is not significant at 95% therefore your sample mean is not significantly different from 0 and your sample standard deviation is not significantly different from 1.
Your random generator is working fine.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Anything is possible but the big question should be – is it reasonable? There various rules for rounding. The one I was taught lo these many years ago is
if it is < X.5 you round down to X.
if it is > X.5 you round up to X+1
if it is = X.5 and X is even you round down to X and if X is odd you round up to X+1.
I’m sure there are others who can give you empirical rules that are similar.
@clb1 Include @clb1 in your post and this person will be notified via email.
You said “We reject null ypothesis when the p value is less than 0.05 ” In this instance p = .05. If p = .05 then p is not less than .05 therefore you cannot reject the null given that your rejection criteria was that you would reject if and only if p < .05.
