I was taught that Fisher proposed the F-test as a computationally simpler approximation to what he called a "Randomization test", consisting of exhaustive permutations. I never looked at the original Fisher reference myself, so this may be false.
However, I haven't observed a consistent nomenclature when I have seen these tests discussed, so I typically ensure to mention whether what I'm doing is exhaustive or non-exhaustive. I do see the value in your interpretation, and think it makes sense to drop "randomization" as a name (despite it's possible historical significance) and start using "exhaustive permutation test" (to contrast with "non-exhaustive permutation test"). On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Peter Dalgaard <p.dalga...@biostat.ku.dk> wrote: > Mike Lawrence wrote: >> >> Looks like that code implements a non-exhaustive variant of the >> randomization test, sometimes called a permutation test. > > Isn't it the other way around? (Permutation tests can be exhaustive by > looking at all permutations, if a randomization test did that, then it > wouldn't be random.) > > > -- > 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 > ~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalga...@biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907 > -- Mike Lawrence Graduate Student Department of Psychology Dalhousie University Looking to arrange a meeting? Check my public calendar: http://tinyurl.com/mikes-public-calendar ~ Certainty is folly... I think. ~ ______________________________________________ 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.
