Activity

Dear ALL,
the proof that MINITAB T CHARTS are wrong is published.
1 week ago

After reading some statistics basics, you need intelligence (in order not to be cheated) 6 months ago

In some papers downloaded in October 2020 I found the following:

1. We conclude, based on our review of the articles in this special issue and the broader literature, that it is time to stop using the term “statistically significant” entirely.
2. Nor should variants such as “significantly different,” “p < 0.05,” and “nonsignificant”…

[Read more]

@SavvyHill

You say:

I’m looking to network with like minded individuals that solve problems

I have been managing to find innovative solutions to QUALITY problems for 45 years.

IF you like you can get in touch with me.

Fausto Galetto

[email protected] 6 months, 3 weeks ago

@MinitabUser1829

The complete statement in the book about Statistics and Minitab is

the upper bound is 0.492 gram for the standard deviation (given by the chi-square method). This means that 95% of the hamburgers have fat content with a standard deviation that is lower than 0.492 gram.

6 months, 3 weeks ago

@sks2

I try to see IF I understand correctly your statements.

You say:

· “The wider the net you cast, the more often you’ll observe the true value.”

Do you mean that the “true value” is an observable quantity?

You say:

· There are cases where a confidence interval (Frequentist statistics) can also be equal to a credible…

[Read more]

In a book about Statistics and Minitab I found:

Confidence interval estimation is a technique to estimate a population parameter (such as population proportion) using sample data. The estimate is calculated for a given confidence level and is expressed as an interval. The higher the confidence level is, the less precise the interval estimate.…

[Read more]

Using MANOVA the quadratic effects are significant for both the responses … 7 months ago

Using MANOVA you will find that some interactions are NOT significant, while they are significant fo Y1, analysing separately 7 months ago

There is NO NEED to convert anything to get the decision 7 months ago

The TWO responses cannot be analysed AS THOUGH they were independent.

MANOVA must be used

7 months, 1 week ago

In a document in Research Gate (about Inspection) I read the following formula, about a random variable X:

the mean value E(X)=p*beta,

where

1. “p is the probability that a product is REALLY defective”

2. “alfa is the probability that a product REALLY NON_defective is WRONGLY detected as defective”

3. “beta is the pro…[Read more]

@rbutler

Fantastic Idea Robert (in the file) 7 months, 1 week ago

NO SW!!!

Only a bit of Mathematics… 7 months, 2 weeks ago

@Karthikdharmalingam

In order to provide you with a sensible solution you have to answer to these questions:

1. The sample S1 (sample size 100) is 10% of the “population”? It seems so from your writing…

2. The sample S2 (sample size 10) is 10% of the SAMPLE S1? It seems so from your writing…

3. IF NOT specify clearly

Afte…[Read more]

Fitting the Weibull to pass through the two points!!!

You must study a bit of THEORY 7 months, 2 weeks ago

@KatieBarry

It seems that your previous “Rules” are NOT applied to the other two questions:

Help with Homework Problem by Karthik Dharmalingam
Bernoulli Distribution by Fausto Galetto

Let’s do not waste any more time… 7 months, 2 weeks ago

In a document in Research Gate (about Inspection) I read the following formula:

p=1-(1-PDU/N)^N, with the statement, that “p is the probability of a workstation (made of N jobs) related to a Bernoulli Random Variable X”, where PDU is the Product Defect per Unit, totalized in a series of N jobs (forming the workstation).