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”…
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.
- · “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?
- · 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 … 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
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,
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]
Only a bit of Mathematics… 7 months, 2 weeks 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
Fitting the Weibull to pass through the two points!!!
You must study a bit of THEORY 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).
- 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 7 months, 2 weeks ago
- Load More