iSixSigma

Fausto Galetto

Forum Replies Created

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 85 posts - 1 through 85 (of 85 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #250541

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

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

    1
    #250260

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @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]

    0
    #250235

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @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.

     

    0
    #250177

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @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 interval (Bayesian statistics), and the statement would be correct.

    Do you mean that the statement “95% of the hamburgers have fat content with a standard deviation that is lower than 0.492 gram.” is correct only IF a credible interval is used (Bayesian statistics) AND confidence interval=credible interval, while it is wrong when we use “Frequency statistics” OR confidence interval is NOT=credible interval?

    Thank you

    0
    #250113

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    Using MANOVA the quadratic effects are significant for both the responses …

    0
    #250087

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

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

    0
    #250086

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    There is NO NEED to convert anything to get the decision

    1
    #249938

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

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

    MANOVA must be used

     

    0
    #249869

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @rbutler

    Fantastic Idea Robert (in the file)

    0
    #249830

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    NO SW!!!

    Only a bit of Mathematics…

    0
    #249782

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @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

    After your reply, you can have “your solution”…

    Btw: Quality score : 10/100 = 90% is misleading; it must be written 90%=[(100-10)/100]*100

    0
    #249781

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

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

    You must study a bit of THEORY

    0
    #249766

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @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…

    0
    #249745

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @KatieBarry

    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:

    1. the case is not interesting
    2. the iSixSigma audience does not WANT to answer
    3. the iSixSigma audience does not KNOW HOW to answer
    4. ….
    0
    #249743

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    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

    0
    #249725

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    If you provide the data I will see what I can do.

    I do not understand what do you mean with “””second node”””

    0
    #249696

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @lucaspaesp

    IF YOU had provided the data one could have shown you how to deal with YOUR Control Chart…

    DATA allow making analyses, Graphs sometimes are useful…

    0
    #249102

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    Before asking questions one must study a bit ….

    0
    #248899

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    Your question makes no sense for an Institution that really wants to make Future Quality Managers (now students).

    0
    #247583

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    Do you have any “distribution” of your data, in the interval 0___A?

    IF YES, you have to find the SAMPLING Distribution of the MEAN and then derive the LCL and UCL from that.

    IF NO, you have

    1. to ESTIMATE the Distribution of your DATA,
    2. and from that find the SAMPLING Distribution of the MEAN and then derive the LCL and UCL from that

    Which is your case?

    0
    #247079

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    It is a spammer who tries to get MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!

    0
    #246986

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @Alessione


    @Straydog


    @JamHaron

    Control limits are calculated at +/- three sigma from the mean.

    makes NO sense, for Exponential or Weibull distributed data!!!!

    SEE the ERRORS in T Charts (from MINITAB)

    0
    #246703

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    Perhaps I MISUSED Minitab….

    Power and Sample Size

    2-Sample t Test

    Testing mean 1 = mean 2 (versus <)

    Calculating power for mean 1 = mean 2 + difference

    α = 0,05  Assumed standard deviation = 400

    Results

    Difference -600
    Sample Size 10
    Target Power 0.92
    Actual Power 0.942864
    The sample size is for each group.

    0
    #246694

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    I used mu2-m1=600

    0
    #246663

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @Darth

    Using Minitab, at “Power and Sample Size” I think I found that 10+10 items should give at least 90% power for the differences to be assessed…. IF I used Minitab properly!!! (at “Power and Sample Size”)…………

    It could be that the “non-rejection of the H0” could depend on the methods used…

    0
    #246580

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @amir_h2opolo

    IF YOU provide me with your data I will try to analyse your case

    mail: [email protected]

     

    1
    #246578

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @rbutler, @Mike-Carnel, @Darth, @David007, @cseider


    @Sharmin
    , @BayanKamal, @paulchen, @jazzchuck, @Hajo, @Yeoh

     

    Yesterday 8 March 2020 a graduate of mine phoned me. We were remembering the time when several of my students were able to read PEER REVIEWED papers PUBLSHED in REPUTED Journals and to find the BMWs of the REPUTED Authors!!!!

    She remembered the MONTGOMERY Case and the graduates who dealt it CORRECTLY in their THESES.

    You find two of them who were BETTER than Statisticians and Certified Master Black Belts…

    FROM two THESES of my STUDENTS

    Attachments:
    1. From-two-Theses-of-MY-Students.docx
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #246540

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    For the casual reader who is late to this spectacle and who does not wish to plow through all 94 posts …. as done by “@rbutler Senior Biotatistician” (@rbutlerSB, for short!)

     

    @rbutlerSB was the first to reply ; perhaps he wants to be

    • ·         The last straw that breaks the camel back………..

     

    AS SAID by @rbutlerSB

    • ·         Ignorance, Incompetence and Presumptuousness is very present in this thread
    • ·         Because from his Universe of KNOWLEDGE @rbutlerSB is UNCAPABLE to
    • ·         REALISE that Minitab T Charts are WRONG
    • ·         Being T Charts based on the “WRONG theory” of the paper “E. Santiago, J. Smith, Control charts based on the Exponential Distribution, Quality Engineering, 25:2, 85-96, at the link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08982112.2012.740646”
    • ·         which has wrong formulae for the Control Limits of T Charts
    • ·         in spite that is was “Peer Reviewed” and “Published in a GOOD Journal” (so having the dignity to be considered “scientific”)

    @rbutlerSB DOES NOT accept to STUDY and to SEE IF I AM right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    He prefers waffling as follows:

    • ·         “””””””””As the most prolific responder to his posts I’ve tried to politely point out the shortcomings of his theory and why it isn’t viable.  It has been, as I thought it probably would be, a vain effort. The only thing I’ve received in return is a barrage of ad hominem attacks and multiple accusation of waffling (6 times) (to waffle – to be unable to make a decision, to talk a lot without giving any useful information or answers). Waffling – back at you OP.””””””
    • ·         “””””””””There really isn’t anything else to say – the OP has constructed a theory based on postulates and axioms of his choosing. He has reported the results of his theory as though they were correct while the empirical evidence he himself has compiled in this regard says otherwise, he has provided no proof of the correctness of his theory, and he reacts violently to any suggestion that his theory is wrong.  I’m sure the OP will want to have the last word, as well as the one following that – go for it Fausto  – QED (Quite Enough Discussion) “””””””””
    1. 1.    I ASKED @rbutlerSB and others to PROVIDE where I CAN FIND their PEER REVIEWED papers!!!
    2. 2.    They DID NOT let me read their PEER REVIEWED papers!!!
    3. 3.    THEY realise that I will find THEIR errors (IF there are any….) USING THEORY
    4. 4.    Certified MBB and (Bio)Statisticians SHOULD know THEORY (Probability, Statistics, Logic, ….)

    Deming’s ideas are in order [Deming (1986)]

    • ·         “It is a hazard to copy”,
    • ·         “It is necessary to understand the theory of what one wishes to do or to make.”
    • ·         “The result is that hundreds of people are learning what is wrong. I make this statement on the basis of experience, seeing every day the devastating effects of incompetent teaching and faulty applications.”

    The WAFFLERS are UNABLE to understand that the attached figure (to my Previous reply) is TWICE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Ignorance, Incompetence and Presumptuousness

    Attachments:
    1. You must be signed in to download files.
    2. You must be signed in to download files.
    3. You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #246522

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @rbutler

    @David007

     

    WAFFLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The attached figure is TWICE WRONG and YOU do not ACCEPT, due to your ….

    Stop writing BMWs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Attachments:
    1. You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #246493

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ginloen

    YOU SAY:

    I am trying to find degrees of freedom, the formula that I know

    df = n− 1

    THIS FORMULA is NONSENSE in your case

    From a sample, whose population is assumed to follow a Normal Distribution, taken for 30 days at 60 degrees or more an average of 13.6 pots per day were sold with a Standard Deviation of 0.7 pots.

    HOW MANY DAYS was long your time observation? Let’s say 80…

    SO you have 20 days with temperature less that 60 degrees!!!!!!!!

    IF YOU STUDY THEORY you will find the df 

    0
    #246491

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    04 March 2020, ore 15.48

    @rbutler

    • ·         I got 3 times the following (form iSixSigma)
    • ·         ERROR: Your reply cannot be created at this time.
      So I made a document……….

    ………………………………………………………………………………………..

    IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF, IF

    1. 1.    The Certified Master Black Belts
    2. 2.    The Statisticians fond of Six Sigma (also biostatisticians!)
    3. 3.    The users of MINITAB
    4. 4.    The authors of MINITAB

    KNEW THEORY

    • ·         They should find the TRUE Control Limits
    Attachments:
    1. Reply-to-RButler_04-March-2020.docx
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #246488

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @KatieBarry

    I am having a lot of problems in uploading my reply

    0
    #246468

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @rbutler

    Your last reply with the statement about “”””the PBV method of scientific discourse (Proof By Volume)””” made me think that we have different ideas about THEORY and SCIENTIFICNESS.

    For me THEORY is

    • ·         The set of all LOGIC Deductions
    • ·         Drawn
    • ·         From Axioms and Postulates
    • ·         Which allow to go LOGICALLY from Hypotheses to Theses
    • ·         Such that ALL Intelligent and Sensible people CAN DRAW the SAME RESUL

     People who do not know Theory have to be considered IGNORANT
         People who are IGNORANT and waffle about subject they do not know have to be considered PRESUMPTUOUS

    • ·         ALL my papers and books are BASED on THEORY!!!!!!!!!

     

    Let’s see

    1.    IF YOU applied THEORY

    2.    In your replies

    3.    Some times…

    The subject of the post was and is CONTROL CHARTS (with NON-Normal data)

    • ·         CERTIFIED MASTER Black Belts should know it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • ·         STATISTICIANS, “””expert””” of Six Sigma should know it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Your first reply on December 7, 2019

    • ·         was NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         but only on your ideas (shared by many others) that one has “””submit … to a peer reviewed journal”””
    • ·         because you did not have the faintest idea how to deal with the Montgomery case….

    Your second reply on January 10, 2020 (one month later!)

    • ·         was AGAIN NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         but only on your ideas
    • ·         “”””I agree nobody, including yourself, tried to solve the cases. As I’m sure others will tell you, the usual procedure on this site is for you to try to solve the problem, post a reasonable summary of your efforts on a thread and then ask for help/suggestions.”””
    • ·         and ASKING me to “”””learn about G and T charts, and do the work manually”””
    • ·         because you did not have the faintest idea how to deal with the Montgomery case….

    The suggestion of @Darth was the hint for my document “””Open-Letter-for-Master-Black-Belts”””


    @Darth
    uploaded the T Chart made by MINITAB Software

    That was a great advance, BECAUSE it showed that MINITAB T Chart WERE and ARE WRONG.

    Your third reply on January 14, 2020

    • ·         was AGAIN NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         but only on your Super_Long_WAFFLING
    • ·         and on your ideas (shared by many others) about AGAIN “””peer reviewed”””
    • ·         by saying “”””””Given the bombast I decided to see what I could find.  I couldn’t find a single peer reviewed paper by the OP listed in either Pubmed or Jstor.””””””
    • ·         and after “”””””I also know many of the statisticians at Minitab have numerous papers in the peer-reviewed press on statistics and process control and have made presentations at more technical meetings than I could list.  Under those circumstances, if the OP really thinks he is right and Minitab is wrong then the OP first needs to take the time to find, and thoroughly understand, the theory behind the T chart – this would require actually researching the topic – books, peer reviewed papers, etc.””””””
    • ·         because you did not have the faintest idea how to deal with the Montgomery case….

     

    AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN………..PEER REVIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    Your fourth reply on January 15, 2020

    • ·         was AGAIN NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         but only on your Super_Long_WAFFLING
    • ·         because you did not have the faintest idea how to deal with the Montgomery case….

     

    AFTER my document “”””for-R_Butler_Quality-education-versus-Peer-Review_2006.docx””””….

    Your fifth reply on January 16, 2020

    • ·         was AGAIN NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         but only on your Super_Long_WAFFLING
    • ·         because you did not have the faintest idea how to deal with the Montgomery case….
    • ·         In spite of your “””””I do peer reviewing for the statistics sections of papers submitted to one of the scientific journals.””””

    AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN………..PEER REVIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    For 10 days there was a lot of WAFFLING in the thread………………

    THIS have been really the best advance in the discussion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    IT proved CLEARLY that “”””PEER Review”””” DOES NOT ASSURE Quality of papers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    As a matter of fact

    • ·         The paper of J. Smith “””Control Charts Based on the Exponential Distribution“””
    • ·         Written by MINITAB “””Experts (???)”””
    • ·         PUBLISHED in the PRESTIGIOUS Journal Quality Engineering
    • ·         and PEER REVIEWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • ·         In a way that made the authors to write
    • ·         “”””The authors thank Dr. William H. Woodall, whose comments and careful examination of our article greatly improved our presentation.”””” AND “””””We also thank two anonymous referees whose comments helped to improve our presentation”””””
    • ·         IS wrong !!!!!!!

    David007 replies from January 27, 2020 to January 30

    • ·         were AGAIN NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         BECAUSE he did not and does not know THEORY
    • ·         by writing “””””The T chart (Exponential) doesn’t show OOC but MR does if you use Non Normal Capability Six Pack (Exponential)”””””·
    •           again NO THEORY, only BLIND use of Minitab [Six Pack is another drawback of MINITAB
    • ·         and many other NONSENSE
    • ·         thinking ALSO that SIMULATIONS …. can do well!!!!!

    THEN there have been the mail exchanged with MINITAB and my document to you “””for-R_Butler-Minitab-INCOMPETENCE-Referees-INCOMPETENCE.docx””””

    Several authors cited in J. Smith paper published papers PEER REVIEWED with the same type of ERRORS as J. Smith paper!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • ·         THEORY PROVES THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    On February 28, 2020 I informed all the discussants of the REJECTION, by Quality Engineering, of my submitted paper on T Charts……….

     

    Your sixth reply came on February 29, 2020 (after 40 days!!!)

    • ·         was AGAIN NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         but only on your writing
    • ·         @fausto.galetto – In your post to @David007 on February 29 at 4:39 AM you spewed out a lot of hate and you concluded with the statement “Tell me your publications SO THAT I CAN READ them…. and I will come back to you and to your “””LIKERS”””!”
    • ·         AND %%%@David007 has been courteous and polite in every response he has made to your postings.  Your responses to his posts are nothing but shouting and invective. They are, by turns, irrational, ugly, viscous, denigrating, and hateful.  They have no place on a forum of this type.%%%
    • ·         BUT NO THEORY
    • ·         because NOBODY did have the faintest idea how to deal with the Montgomery case….

     

    Your seventh reply on March 1, 2020

    • ·         was AGAIN NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         but only on this scientific statement
    • ·         “””””In your numerous posts to this thread you have made it very clear you interpret anything that goes against your personal views as arising from “IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS”. What you choose to ignore is the obvious fact that your personal views are not shared by the people you are addressing on this forum, by the body of practitioners of science/engineering/process control in general, nor by the body of reviewed and published scientific/engineering literature.””””
    • ·         because you did not have the faintest idea how to deal with the Montgomery case and T CHARTS….

    Your eigth reply on March 2, 2020

    • ·         was AGAIN NOT based on THEORY
    • ·         but only on these scientific statements
    • ·         “””””If the “paper” you sent to  Quality Engineering looked anything like the stuff you have uploaded to that storage site (open access with no apparent oversight) it is not surprising it was rejected””””
    • ·         AND “””””Based on what you have posted here and on ResearchGate it appears you strongly favor the PBV method of scientific discourse (Proof By Volume).  That method works well in the world of politics and extreme religious movements but does not advance your cause (and hopefully it never will) in the world of engineering and science.””””

    I wonder if you (and several other people)

    • ·         know what THEORY means and entails…
    • ·         are BIASED BY LACK of THEORY …

     

    WHERE can I find YOUR PEER REVIEWED Scientific papers, @rbutler, ???????????

    0
    #246437

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

    FANTASTIC, FANTASTIC, REALLY FANTASTIC @David007 …..

     

    You do not want to understand….

    THEORY IS NEEDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

    SEE the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS in the paper of J. Smith PUBLISHED in a PRESTIGIOUS Journal

    1. 1.    The authors thank Dr. William H. Woodall, whose comments and careful examination of our article greatly improved our presentation.
    2. 2.    We also thank two anonymous referees whose comments helped to improve our presentation.

    The paper IS WRONG, WRONG WRONG and YOU did not KNOW  and YOU do not WANT to see that it IS WRONG, WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!

     

    WHY do you want that my post HAD TO BE (as you say)

    • ·       “if you (I Fausto Galetto) said something like parameter estimation issues due to small sample size”

    ???

    The plain fact is that

    • ·         The paper of J. Smith PUBLISHED in a PRESTIGIOUS Journal
    • ·         and PEER REVIEWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • ·         SUGGESTED by YOU
    • ·         IS wrong !!!!!!!
    • ·         THEORY PROVES THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1.    ALL the LIKERS, AND YOU @David007, do not know THEORY

    2.    Otherwise they SHOULD see the NONSENSE of the statement

    3.    February 2, 2020 at 4:27 pm #245904REPLY Minitab tech support is not needed. Calculate the scale (Exponential) or scale and shape (Weibull) using maximum likelihood. Compute .135 and 99.865 percentiles.

    4.    “IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS” support the previous NONSENSE statement……….

     

    • ·         YOU AND ALL the discussants MUST LEARN THEORY
    • ·         IF you want to see why the T Charts in MINITAB are WRONG
    0
    #246433

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

    FANTASTIC, FANTASTIC, REALLY FANTASTIC @David007 …..

    YOU say…. (and “IGNORANT, INCOMPETENT and PRESUMPTUOUS LIKERS” share your views):

    • ·         The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. (omissis)
    • ·         You have not made any effort to explain in detail why the T charts are wrong, given that the data are exponentially distributed.
    • ·         (Obviously if the data is distributed differently then one should use a different distribution).

    1.    I made various attempts to show….

    2.    … citing some of my papers

    3.    THAT ALREADY 20 years ago showed the problems of the Montgomery case;

    4.    … citing some of my books

    5.    THAT ALREADY 20 years ago had the THEORY to …;

    6.    They have been cancelled by KB

     

    The BURDEN to UNDERSTAND is the duty of the readers: THEY MUST know THEORY

     

    • ·         The paper of J. Smith PUBLISHED in a PRESTIGIOUS Journal
    • ·         and PEER REVIEWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • ·         SUGGESTED by YOU
    • ·         IS wrong !!!!!!!
    • ·         THEORY PROVES THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    1. 1.    ALL the LIKERS, AND YOU @David007, do not know THEORY
    2. 2.    Otherwise they SHOULD see the NONSENSE of the statement
    3. 3.    February 2, 2020 at 4:27 pm #245904REPLY Minitab tech support is not needed. Calculate the scale (Exponential) or scale and shape (Weibull) using maximum likelihood. Compute .135 and 99.865 percentiles.
    4. 4.    “IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS” support the previous NONSENSE statement……….
    • ·         YOU AND ALL the discussants MUST LEARN THEORY
    • ·         IF you want to see why the T Charts in MINITAB are WRONG
    0
    #246431

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @rbutler

    FANTASTIC, FANTASTIC, REALLY FANTASTIC @rbutler …..

    YOU say…. (and “IGNORANT, INCOMPETENT and PRESUMPTUOUS LIKERS” share your views):

    • ·         In your numerous posts to this thread you have made it very clear you interpret anything that goes against your personal views as arising from “IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS”. What you choose to ignore is the obvious fact that your personal views are not shared by the people you are addressing on this forum, by the body of practitioners of science/engineering/process control in general, nor by the body of reviewed and published scientific/engineering literature.

     

    • MANY WRONGS do not make anything RIGTH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    I classify as “IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS” any action that does not take into account THEORY!!!!!!!!!!!

    • ·         The paper of J. Smith PUBLISHED in a PRESTIGIOUS Journal
    • ·         and PEER REVIEWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • ·         SUGGESTED by David007
    • ·         IS WRONG, wrong !!!!!!!
    • ·         THEORY PROVES THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    1. 1.    ALL the LIKERS, AND YOU @rbutler, do not know THEORY
    2. 2.    Otherwise they SHOULD see the NONSENSE of the statement
    3. 3.    February 2, 2020 at 4:27 pm #245904REPLY Minitab tech support is not needed. Calculate the scale (Exponential) or scale and shape (Weibull) using maximum likelihood. Compute .135 and 99.865 percentiles.
    4. 4.    “IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS” support the previous NONSENSE statement……….
    0
    #246421

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @rbutler

    VERY NICE @rbutler …..

    • ·         I LOVE QUALITY (AND people!)
    • ·         I HATE DISquality (NOT people!)

    David007 (nickname) can read my documents in the WEB !!!

    I CANNOT read the documents of David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) in the WEB !!!

    Let’s recap the story (IF you want to read it) and see the increasing grade of goad….:

    1. 1.    January 27, 2020 at 6:41 am  #245779REPLY New account, old timer chiming in. (omissis) With n=20, distribution fitting and parameter estimation isn’t going to be very accurate, but it can still be useful. In my experience using automated …. Also for t charts in Minitab you can choose Weibull or Exponential. Personally I think … t charts got their popularity boost on health care as a simple approximate way to deal with their non normal data. There is no “hidden theory”. Joel Smith has a good paper on t charts …Control charts for Nonnormal data are well documented. (omissis)
    2. 2.    January 27, 2020 at 10:00 am #245789REPLY ….it’s in Quality Engineering “Control Charts Based on the Exponential Distribution…” Quality Engineering, Volume 25, 2013 – Issue 2 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08982112.2012.740646 (omissis) Is your issue that the data is neither exponential nor Weibull, but something else? How can you tell with n=20?
    3. 3.    January 27, 2020 at 12:24 pm #245798REPLY The exponential T charts use an exponential distribution and use maximum likelihood to solve the parameter.  This is exactly equivalent to the control chart obtained when doing a Nonnormal capability six pack with an exponential distribution. Minitab didn’t invent the T charts. They became popular in health care so they added the tool. If you are saying the chart fails to detect assignable causes, try simulating some exponential data.
    4. 4.    January 27, 2020 at 2:25 pm #245800REPLY The T chart (Exponential) doesn’t show OOC but MR does if you use Non Normal Capability Six Pack (Exponential) PS In order to determine if a method is correct or not correct you need to do thousands of simulations, and look at alpha. Add power study then even more.
    5. 5.    January 27, 2020 at 2:53 pm#245801REPLY  According to the Distribution ID method, we should be using a 2 parameter exponential or 3 parameter Weibull anyway.  But as I’ve repeatedly said with n=20 the model is going to be wrong anyway.
    6. 6.    January 27, 2020 at 2:57 pm#245802REPLY You really should play with some simulated exponential data. You’ll be surprised by what you see as “inherent variation”
    7. 7.    January 30, 2020 at 11:19 am #245873REPLY Post a white paper to prove your point.
    8. 8.    February 2, 2020 at 4:27 pm #245904REPLY Minitab tech support is not needed. Calculate the scale (Exponential) or scale and shape (Weibull) using maximum likelihood. Compute .135 and 99.865 percentiles.
    9. 9.    February 3, 2020 at 6:08 am #245935REPLY  As others have said, I anxiously await to see your rebuttal paper in any of Quality Engineering, Journal of Quality Technology, Technometrics, Journal of Applied Statistics, etc.
    10. 10.  February 28, 2020 at 2:03 pm #246400REPLY  Well you can always publish in the prestigious journal Nuclear Science, along with your spam practice of citing every paper that you have ever published. /s

    NOW see the implications….

    1 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) INCOMPETENCE (DISquality Vicious Circle…)

    2 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) IGNORANCE (DVC…)

    3 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS (DVC…)

    4 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS (DVC…)

    5 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS (DVC…)

    6 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS (DVC…)

    7 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) INCOMPETENCE (DVC…)

    8 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS (DVC…)

    9 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS (DVC…)

    10 PROVES David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUSNESS running in the DISquality Vicious Circle…

     

    HE SUGGESTED the wrong paper of J. Smith PUBLISHED in a PRESTIGIOUS Journal and PEER REVIEWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    IF he is so competent HE SHOULD be able to SHOW any error in the paper he is referring to!!!!

     

    IF he is so competent HE SHOULD tell me his publications SO THAT I CAN READ them….!!!

    HE can goad with

    • February 28, 2020 at 2:03 pm #246400REPLY Well you can always publish in the prestigious journal Nuclear Science, along with your spam practice of citing every paper that you have ever published. /s
    • ….
      AND I CANNOT read HIS David007 (HIDDEN by nickname) documents……….!!!???!!!
    0
    #246413

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @KatieBarry

     

    MANY “discussants” in ISixSIGMA write HIDDEN by their nicknames ….

    Could you please tell them to give information about their publications SO THAT I CAN READ them …. and I will come back to you and them?

    WILL THEY do it?

    Let’s wait and see….

    0
    #246412

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

     

    You are an “expert”

    IGNORANT, INCOMPETENTS and PRESUMPTUOUS running in the DISquality Vicious Circle…

    YOU DO NOT realise that good ideas DO NOT depend on WHERE they are PUBLISHED!!!!

    YOU DO NOT know the THEORY.

    • ·         DID YOU read the paper you are referring to?
    • ·         DID YOU understand the paper you are referring to?
    • ·         DID YOU find any error in the paper you are referring to?
    • ·         CAN YOU SHOW any error in the paper you are referring to?

    YOU SUGGESTED the wrong paper of J. Smith PUBLISHED in a PRESTIGIOUS Journal and PEER REVIEWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    YOU write HIDDEN by the nickname David007….

    Tell me your publications SO THAT I CAN READ them…. and I will come back to you and to your “””LIKERS”””!

     

    WILL YOU do it?

    Let’s wait and see….

    0
    #246396

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @KatieBarry

    @Mike-Carnel


    @Darth


    @David007


    @cseider


    @Sharmin


    @BayanKamal


    @paulchen


    @jazzchuck


    @Hajo


    @Yeoh

    Very good news for you………………………..

    Quality Engineering decided to REJECT my submitted paper on T CHARTS.

    Therefore you will not know the RIGHT Control Limits of T Charts (unless you read my books…)

     

    IGNORANCE, INCOMPETENCE and PRESUMPTUOUNESS can stay WELL ALIVE

     

    In my life in Industries and in Universities I MET THOUSANDS of IGNORANTS and INCOMPETENTS and PRESUMPTUOUS running in the DISquality Vicious Circle…

     

     

    Attachments:
    1. You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #246384

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @Mike-Carnel


    @cseider


    @Darth

    I just came across this BY CHANCE.

    The discussion was very illuminating for me.

    It CLEARLY explained why the “experts” were AND are UNABLE to understand that MINITAB provide WRONG Control Limits for T Charts………………

    0
    #246340

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @Yeoh

    IF you send me your data, I will provide you the solution

    [email protected]

    0
    #246320

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @Daniel.S 

    Continuous Improvement Engineer AND

    Lean Six Sigma Black Belt

    SHOULD WANT that MINITAB IMPROVE their ERRORS!!!

    WHY do you do not ask them to do that????????????????

    • I Don’t have anything better to do—————

     

    0
    #246250

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

    You say:

    “””Fausto’s students search in vain for an assignable cause but there are none to be found because the process is inherently exponential.”””

     

    PROVE that if the data are “””inherently exponential””” there are NO Assignable causes!!!

     

    YOU forgot that T CHARTS Control Limits are WRONG in Minitab!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    AND YOU forgot that T CHARTS Control Limits are WRONG in Minitab, NOT with Type I error, BUT > 95% of the times, as per YOUR request of SIMULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    0
    #246230

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    Are you all very happy of this big drawback of MINITAB?

    0
    #246211

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ STATISTICIANS

    “This Fausto guy…” read several papers in the References of the VERY VERY INTERESTING paper

    Control Charts Based on the Exponential Distribution: Adapting Runs Rules for the t Chart

    Eduardo Santiago a & Joel Smith,  Minitab Inc., State College, Pennsylvania

    In Quality Engineering     http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lqen20

    VERY VERY GOOD paper… PEER REVIEWED by … INCOMPETENT …

     

    THEY ALL have (in spite of being PEER REVIEWED) WRONG Control Limits!!!!!!!!!!!

    Ignorance is flooding and overflowing (due to incompetent professionals)…, like Covid 19…

    0
    #246080

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @PlsKISS

    You wrote: Statisticians use the terms “degrees of freedom” to describe the number of values in the final calculation of a statistic that are free to vary.

    This is explanation is due to (whom I call) “normal drugged statisticians” (they are the people that have their “statistical” knowledge based on the Normal Distributed data).

    I refer, as you did, to ””a statistic”” … IF the data are exponentially distributed, the Confidence Interval of the Mean depends on the “degrees of freedom” AND has nothing to do with ””the number of values … that are free to vary””

     

    0
    #246048

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @KatieBarry

    I was challenged to write a paper and to have it PEER REVIEWED, BECAUSE the “discussants in the post” did not have enough knowledge of any method for dealing “correctly” with T Charts.

    THEY did not believe that I am right…

    THEY think that only PEER REVIEWED papers are good!

    It false!

    I suggested my documents in order to GIVE THEM HINTS TO UNDERSTAND (IF they wanted to accept…)…

    I am writing the paper to be PEER REVIEWED…

    IF it will be published (IF PEER REVIEWERS will understand ….) HOW can I inform the discussants where to find my paper, IF “self-references are not permitted in the forum”?

     

    0
    #246026

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    I am very sorry for you.

    Good learning is forbidden to you: when I cite some of my papers they are cancelled …

    On the contrary, wrong papers are allowed:

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08982112.2012.740646

    Did you find the errors in that PEER REVIEWED paper?

     

    Signature: “This Fausto guy …… whack job”

    0
    #246008

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    “This Fausto guy…”

    thinks that Darth is very democratic!!! ???

    Deming’s ideas are in order [Deming (1986)]

    ·         “It is a hazard to copy”,

    ·         “It is necessary to understand the theory of what one wishes to do or to make.”

    ·         “The result is that hundreds of people are learning what is wrong. I make this statement on the basis of experience, seeing every day the devastating effects of incompetent teaching and faulty applications.”

     

    Signature: the “…whack job”

    0
    #246006

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    In these days, I read several papers about “””Charts with exponential distributed data”””: full IGNORANCE!!!

    IF YOU WANT….

    you can find some hints in my paper

    [EDITED BY MODERATOR]

    0
    #245938

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    VERY VERY INTERESTING

    Quality Engineering

    Control Charts Based on the Exponential Distribution: Adapting Runs Rules for the t Chart

    Eduardo Santiago a & Joel Smith,  Minitab Inc., State College, Pennsylvania

    VERY VERY GOOD paper… PEER REVIEWED by … INCOMPETENT …

    • I will send my “rebuttal paper” to Quality Engineering.
    • Will they find COMPETENT Peer Revewers?????????????????
    0
    #245933

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @rbutler

    The paper suggestedd by David007 proves that Peer Review Process does not assure “quality (????)” of the papers………………

    See the file

    Attachments:
    1. for-R_Butler-Minitab-INCOMPETENCE-Referees-INCOMPETENCE.docx
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #245932

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

    As I said in a previous post (I do not remember “when”) THAT’S WRONG!!!!

    THEORY is needed!!!!

    0
    #245901

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    Another case of WRONG T Chart and WRONG decisions ….

    • in the VERY; VERY GOOD paper!?!?!?!? [as someone said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
    Attachments:
    1. THIRD-INCOMPETENCE-at-Minitab_2020-02-02.docx
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #245895

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    AFTER several e-mails exchanged with MINITAB, here are the conclusions:

    From MINITAB:

    1.    Discussing the topic of the theory behind the T charts are not covered by our free technical support,

    2.    and I would refer you to consult with your favorite statistician

    3.    or you can pay us for tutoring through our Statistical Consulting service.

     

    SHOULD I have to PAY for their WRONG T CHARTS?????????????’

     

    Fausto Galetto reply to MINITAB:

    1.      KEEP YOUR WRONG METHODS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2.    AND SELL TO YOUR CUSTOMERS WITH ERRORS…..

    3.    AND MAKE THEM “”””TAKE WRONG DECISIONS”“””

    0
    #245894

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ All STATISTICIANS

    I will write a Green&White&Red paper and I send it to a Statistics Journal HOPING that ti will be analysed by INTELLIGENT Peer Reviewers……….

    The Correct THEORY is in my books.

    I am not allowed by iSixSigma to provide links to my documents!!!

     

    For the time being let you be informed that I informed MINITAB of their T Charts WRONG!!!!

    0
    #245871

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ All STATISTICIANS who use

    <<<< Six Sigma is 34 years old and yet continues to be used with success.>>>

     

    With EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION AND millions of simulations one can find that the MINITAB T CHARTS are WRONG 93.3% of “applications”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    DAVID007 (BOND, David Bond?)

    NOW do you not believe in SIMULATION????????????????

    “””””””””””””With EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION AND millions of simulations one can find that the MINITAB T CHARTS are WRONG 93.3% of “applications”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!””””””””””””””

     

    0
    #245869

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ All STATISTICIANS

     

    Incompetent “””experts””” DO NOT believe in THEORY

    Incompetent “””experts””” BELIEVE in SIMULATIONS

     

    With millions of simulations one can find that the MINITAB T CHARTS are WRONG 93.3% of “applications”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    0
    #245866

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

    You are very good in “quality methods”!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    You continue not understanding the problem: THEORY!!!!!!!

     

    0
    #245845

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ all STATISTICIANS

    Another case of WRONG T Chart and WRONG decisions ….

    • in the VERY; VERY GOOD paper!?!?!?!? [as someone said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
    Attachments:
    1. 2nd_Incompetence-at-Minitab.docx
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #245841

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

     

    The attached file give some hints of the INCOMPETENCE of EXPERTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    How can Minitab users find that their decisions based on T Charts were, are and will be WRONG ????

    • VERY; VERY GOOD paper!?!?!?!? [as you said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
    Attachments:
    1. Incompetence-at-Minitab.docx
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #245832

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    I used to say in my courses (Academic, Companies, Quality Associations, Masters)

    “”””several EXPERTES (are they????), who are UNABLE to DEAL with THEORY, use SIMULATIONS!!!!””””

     

    I do not have SiX Pack…………

     

    0
    #245799

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

    ·         The exponential T charts use an exponential distribution and use maximum likelihood to solve the parameter.

    YES. BUT this is not the way to find the UPPER and LOWER Control Limits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    ·         If you are saying the chart fails to detect assignable causes, try simulating some exponential data.

    I DO NOT HAVE TO SIMULATE….

    Here are the data (exponentially distributed):

    286
    948
    536
    124
    816
    729
    4
    143
    431
    8
    2837
    596
    81
    227
    603
    492
    1199
    1214
    2831
    96
    THE PROCESS is OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!

    What tells you the Minitab T Chart?????

    Are UCL and LCL right or WRONG????

    0
    #245797

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

     

    You WANT to CHANGE the terms of the problem:

     

    ·         All models are wrong. Some are useful. With n=20, yes it’s going to be wrong, but can still be useful.

     

    The discussion is:

    ·         With “”””””””””””EXPONENTIALLY distributed data”””””””””””” MINITAB T Charts are WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ·         IT IS NOT A MODEL PROBLEM. IT is wrong THEORY from Minitab!!!!

    Thank you for the link

    ·         https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08982112.2012.740646

    BUT I DO NOT WANT to spend 45 $ to read a paper………………. [written by MINITAB experts!!!]

     

    I will tell you what I would do IF….

    ·         Is your issue that the data is neither exponential nor Weibull, but something else? How can you tell with n=20?

    after the EXPONENTIAL T Charts are settled

    0
    #245787

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @David007

    You wrote:

    1.    There is no “hidden theory”.

    2.    Joel Smith has a good paper on t charts in JQT. Control charts for Nonnormal data are well documented.

    3.    Finally, if you have a known distribution then obviously use that. However that is rare.

    IF, in MINITAB, “”””””There is no “hidden theory”.””””””, as you say…. WHAT is the THEORY (not hidden!!!)???

    Do you know it?

     

    I beg you pardon for my ignorance: I do not know what is JQT… SO I CANNOT find the good paper on T Charts of Joel Smith.

     

    I think that you do not want to acknowledge that the “”””””MINITAB T Charts on EXPONENTIALLY distributed data”””””” are WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    0
    #245724

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ ALL

    The mail exchanges with Minitab show clearly that they do not know that the “hidden theory” behind their Control Chart for exponentially distributed data is WRONG!!!

    0
    #245673

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @cseider

     

    You write “””doing a control chart on MTBF would seem to be a silly tool for practical use.”””

    I completely AGREE with you!

    But the question was not an engineering one!

    It referred to the incompetent analysis of the data by Montgomery, by Certified Master Black Belts, by Statisticians, by Minitab FANS….

    NOTICE the Montgomery’s (Engineering) IGNORANCE; he writes:

    “””Note that the control charts indicate a state of control, implying that the failure mechanism for this valve is constant. If a process change is made that improves the failure rate (such as a different type of maintenance action), then we would expect to see the mean time between failures get longer.”””

    NO maintenance ACTION can improve the failure rate of EXPONENTIALLY distributed Random Variables!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    THAT says the THEORY!!!!!!!!!!!

    Thank you for the correction of my misspelling….

    0
    #245651

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @darth

    “”””WOW!!!!!!  This thread is soooo coooool.“”””

    What IRONY!!!!!

    “”””Maybe he could be invited to the next Mini Conference in Sept. to present his case.  I would support that since he would be able to spew his theory in front of the best of the best of Minitab.””””

    Questions to Statisticians I will come to show the Reliability Integral Theory that solves Scientifically the Montgomery case… and some more things…

    Fausto Galetto

    0
    #245635

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @cseider, @mike-carnell, @rubtler, @darth, @Sharmin

    Statisticians and Master Black Belts

    As expected, MINITAB did not provide the THEORY of T Charts.

    They wrote to me: “”””Through our free tech support, we would not be able to have a discussion regarding the theory of T charts. We can show you how to use Minitab. If you’d like to research the theory on your own …””””

    Notice the T Chart by Minitab of the Montgomery data:

     

    In a conference in Milan ( 2019), an INCOMPETENT “”””Certified”””” Master Black Belt told the audience “””” Minitab uses HIGH MATHEMATICS! You do not have to bother about it! Minitab do it for you!¢¢¢¢

    FANTASTIC…….

    NOTICE the High Maths in the T Charts…

    The “”””Secret (of Sahara)”””” is unveiled:

    LCL and UCL are the values providing 1-exp(-4692/710.05) AND 1-exp(-Nuova immagine1/710.05)….

    Those values ARE NOT LCL and UCL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    THIS proves the INCOMPETENCE of MINITAB

     

    Attachments:
    1. You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #245613

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @mike-carnell

    Oh Mr President,

    YOU wrote “””Is this twitter? :)”””

    I only replied to you “””NO it is not! ”””

    SINCE YOUR background in Six Sigma and Lean dates back to the original deployment at Motorola in 1986, YOU should be able to SOLVE “the Montgomery case”!!!

     

    0
    #245576

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @cseider, @mike-carnell, @rubtler, @darth, @Sharmin

    Is this twitter? :)

    NO it is not!

    It is the place where anyone can see IF people solve the Montgomery case of EXPONENTIALLY distributed data!!!

     

    @ Robert Butler I expected that you would not reply to the two simple questions!

    Waffling could not help you, in this case!

    My January 2020 has been very fruitful:

    1.    I confirmed again the “Galetto’s Law”

    2.    The set of Master Black Belts is unable to solve the Montgomery case, both through Theory and Minitab

    3.    The set of professors suggesting the Montgomery WRONG book are unable to solve the Montgomery case, both through Theory and Minitab

    4.    The “discussion” in this thread made me to REALISE that also statisticians, with more than 20 spent as engineering statisticians in industry supporting industrial research, quality improvement, process control, exploratory research, and much more are unable to solve the Montgomery case, both through Theory and Minitab

    5.    T charts in MINITAB are WRONG!!!!

    I thank all the people who participated to my knowledge increase….Questions to Statisticians

     

    0
    #245557

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ Robert Butler

    I beg your pardon IF I am not as good as you at writing and talking. So I will not reply to all your statements.

    I am very impressed of your experience (your writing):

    In my career as a statistician, more than 20 of those years were spent as an engineering statistician in industry supporting industrial research, quality improvement, process control, exploratory research, and much more.

    You have the right experience to decide IF the case dealt in the D.C. Montgomery book [WRONG book] “Introduction to quality control” about the control chart of exponentially distributed data is analysed rightly or wrongly AND IF the T Chart [by MINITAB] on those data is right or wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!

    0
    #245552

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ Robert Butler

    You wrote:
    <p style=”text-align: center;”>And you determined this count of “Thousands” how?</p>
    It is easily assessed by thinking to the following points

    a)    How many people read the Montgomery, with BIG errors, book “Introduction to quality Control”?

    b)    How many PROFESSORS suggested their students the Montgomery, with BIG errors, book “Introduction to quality Control”?

    c)    How many people are MASTER Black Belts?

    d)    How many MASTER Black Belts use Minitab?

    e)    How many MASTER Black Belts use JMP?

    f)     How many MASTER Black Belts use Sixpack?

    g)    How many PROFESSORS use Minitab …, …?

    h)    How many STATISTICIANS use Minitab …, …?

     

    You wrote:
    <p style=”text-align: center;”>one can find out on the web your proof of the “so-called Riemann Hypothesis” – your words – submitted to some general non-peer reviewed archive on 5 October 2018 which was incorrect (in a follow up article to the same archive you said it was “a very stupid error”). It would appear, even with this correction the proof was still wrong because, one can find out on the web your proof of the “so-called Riemann Hypothesis” – your words – submitted to some general non-peer reviewed archive on 5 October 2018 which was incorrect (in a follow up article to the same archive you said it was “a very stupid error”). It would appear, even with this correction the proof was still wrong because, according to Science News for 24 May 2019, the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis (or conjecture) is still in doubt.</p>
     

    The fact that according to Science News for 24 May 2019, the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis (or conjecture) is still in doubt does not mean that it was not proved.

    It means that the “experts” on the matter did not acknowledge it.

    BTW. How many people do you know that publically wrote that they made a stupid error?

     

    You wrote lastly:
    <p style=”text-align: center;”>It’s nice that Juran praised one of your papers at a symposium – the big question is this – which peer reviewed journal published the work?</p>
     

    Before being asked to enter Politecnico of Turin, I worked for more than 20 years as Quality Director in Corporations AND I had to prevent problems NOT to think to write for Peer Reviewed Journals; my papers were presented to International Conferences.

    Since you insist on Peer Review, please find a paper of mine, presented in 2006…

     

    I am looking for SOLUTIONS by MBB who are used to use extensively Minitab, JMP, SixPack, SPSS, … AND I am sure about my method: it follows Probability Laws, Statistics, Mathematics and LOGIC!

    Attachments:
    1. for-R_Butler_Quality-education-versus-Peer-Review_2006.docx
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #245537

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ Robert Butler

    You wrote at point 9

    9.    The OP then slams me for stating he hasn’t tried to solve the cases. OK, fine, I’ll assume he did try. I probably should have said the OP hadn’t tried to do any research with respect to finding the theory of T control charts or really understanding anything about them other than insist Minitab drop everything and get back to him with the demanded information pronto! – but this really doesn’t matter because, as one can see in the other posts, the OP KNOWS Minitab is wrong because he has a proof based on THEORY! What theory he doesn’t say but apparently it doesn’t matter since this THEORY is better than the THEORY of T Charts – even though, by his own admission, he doesn’t know what that theory is.

    As I told you before you did not read carefully my documents.

    There it is said where to find the THEORY that proves Minitab being wrong!

    I am still waiting for Minitab reply

    0
    #245533

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @Knowwareman

    SINCE 1982 my students had the THEORY to solve the two Cases.

    SINCE 1982….

    Since then THOUSANDS of MASTER Black Belts have been unable to solve the cases.

    Deming : “It is a hazard to copy”. “It is necessary to understand the theory of what one wishes to do or to make”. “Without theory, experience has no meaning”. “A figure without a theory tells nothing”. «The result is that hundreds of people are learning what is wrong. I make this statement on the basis of experience, seeing every day the devastating effects of incompetent teaching and faulty applications» and Galetto  (Quality of methods for quality is important, EOQC Conference, Vienna, 1989) have been very clear about the need of being scientific in Quality Management and decisions. J. Juran praised F. Galetto’s paper during his presentation at Vienna Conference.

     

    0
    #245531

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @Robert Butler

    FANTASTIC

    THOUSANDS of MASTER Black Belts are unable to solve the cases.

    See the file

    Attachments:
    1. IGNORANCE-vs-PRESUMPTUOUSNESS.pdf
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #245463

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @Knowwareman 

    THANK you for your file.

    Unfortunately the THEORY behind is not sound…

    See my uploaded documents………

    In any case you are better than other who do not know how to deal with the twwo cases!

    Fausto Galetto

    0
    #245462

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @rbutler

    DID YOU realise that your statements are NONSENSE?

    “”””I agree nobody, including yourself, tried to solve the cases.  As I’m sure others will tell you, the usual procedure on this site is for you to try to solve the problem, post a reasonable summary of your efforts on a thread and then ask for help/suggestions.””””

    In the Fausto Galetto’s two documents there is the solution, based on THEORY!!!

    0
    #244986

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @Darth

    DID YOU read the two documents I uploaded yesterday?

    THERE, there is the same figure you uploaded.

    MINITAB makes a WRONG analysis: the Process is OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I asked to Minitab the THEORY of T Charts!!!!!

    Let’s wait to see IF they provide it….

    0
    #244958

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @ …

    This is the SECOND part of my Open Letter To MBB.

    MInitab does not provide the Theory for T Chart….

    BETTER I DID NOT FIND in Minitab the THEORY!!!

    IF someone knows it PLEASE provide INFORMATION

    Attachments:
    1. Open-Letter-for-Master-Black-Belts-Part-2A.pdf
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #244956

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    @rbutler 

    I try again to upload the frist part of my Open Letter To MBB.

    MInitab does not provide the Theory for T Chart….

    BETTER I DID NOT FIND in Minitab the THEORY!!!

    IF someone knows it PLEASE provide INFORMATION

    Attachments:
    1. Open-Letter-for-Master-Black-Belts-Part-1A.pdf
      You must be signed in to download files.
    0
    #244932

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    Dear all,

    I downlodaded Minitab 19 BECAUSE NOBODY tird to solve the cases.

    Here you find sometyhing new about the Darth suggestion

     

    0
    #244331

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    Dear Darth,

    I do not have MINITAB.

    So I cannot do what you suggest!

    Can somebody do it ?

    0
    #244329

    Fausto Galetto
    Participant

    Dear Robert Butler,

    NO CONSULTING SERVICES TO BE SOLD!

    I am looking for solutions provided by the Master Black Belts (professionals of SIX SIGMA).

    I do not want to challenge the authors!!!

    THEY did not provide the solution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I repeat:

    I am looking for solutions provided by the Master Black Belts (professionals of SIX SIGMA).

     

     

    0
Viewing 85 posts - 1 through 85 (of 85 total)