Activity
-
Dear ALL,
the proof that MINITAB T CHARTS are wrong is published.
1 month, 4 weeks ago -
After reading some statistics basics, you need intelligence (in order not to be cheated) 7 months, 3 weeks 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”…
-
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
-
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.
-
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…
-
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.…
-
Using MANOVA the quadratic effects are significant for both the responses … 8 months, 3 weeks ago
-
Using MANOVA you will find that some interactions are NOT significant, while they are significant fo Y1, analysing separately 8 months, 3 weeks ago
-
There is NO NEED to convert anything to get the decision 8 months, 3 weeks ago
-
The TWO responses cannot be analysed AS THOUGH they were independent.
MANOVA must be used
-
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]
-
Fantastic Idea Robert (in the file) 9 months ago
-
NO SW!!!
Only a bit of Mathematics… 9 months, 1 week ago
-
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 9 months, 1 week ago
-
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… 9 months, 1 week 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).
- In my opinion, p can…
-
I did not expect that “”iSixSigma audience had to do MY work for ME“”.
I expected some hints to afford the problem….
We can have some causes of NO Reply:
- the case is not interesting
- the iSixSigma audience does not WANT to answer
- the iSixSigma audience does not KNOW HOW to answer
- ….
-
Your customer is ignorant.
The information provided is contradictory: beta=1 and the two points.
From the reliability curve, any educated “manager” derives beta=0.743 9 months, 1 week ago
- Load More