Berwin A Turlach wrote:
> <rant on> > That's the problem with introductory textbook whose author think they > do the students a favour by using notation as z_alpha, z_0.01, > z_(alpha/2) instead of z_(1-alpha), z_0.99, z_(1-alpha/2), > respectively. In my opinion this produces in the long run only > more confusion and does not help students at all. It just panders to > intellectual laziness of (some) students and shows a great deal of > confusion on the side of the authors. > I would search another textbook > <rand off> Exposure to certain groups of students might change your opinions there.... Some of us have been teaching to people who have trouble calculating "21% of the number of boys" so you really don't want to throw them further off their feet by relying on mathematical nitty-gritty. (Actually, I don't think you see z_alpha that much. It's more like "tail area", "P value", "Two sided P value".) -- O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Øster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX: (+45) 35327907 ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
