Oops, I meant 1,000,000 for question 5.
I'm not a statistician. I reasoned this way: If I somehow "explore" lots
of hypotheses I need to correct for that, otherwise I may overfit. In 2,
I only checked one randomly chosen hypothesis and stopped exploring
after that.
In 4 and 5, I've in some w
Wow. You do have a rationale for your answer to 4. I completely
disagree with it but it's a rational.
At 02:42 PM 7/2/2010, David Pennock wrote:
Oops, I meant 1,000,000 for question 5.
I'm not a statistician. I reasoned this way: If I somehow "explore"
lots of hypotheses I need to correct fo
Dear David,
Thanks for the reply. Question 5 does not have a yes or no answer. I
find it quite odd that you say yes to 4 and no to 2. Can you explain?
If you were a classic frequentist, you'd say no to both. I would say
yes to 2 and no to 4.
By the way, I just submitted another post with my an
I'll bite.
1. yes
2. no
3. yes
4. yes
5. yes
Rich Neapolitan wrote:
Let's have some fun in this group again instead of just posting about
conferences, post docs, and new books, etc. I offer you this quiz about
the use of the Bonferroni (or any other) correction:
I have 1,000,000 hypotheses t
Dear all,
I want to hear others' answers to this question; Rich tells me I'll
get his if I post my attempted answers to the list, so here goes :-)
(Caveat: I Am Not A Statistician but you'll be pleased to know that I
don't test 1,000,000 hypotheses in my work.)
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 15:42, Ric
Let's have some fun in this group again instead of just posting about
conferences, post docs, and new books, etc. I offer you this quiz
about the use of the Bonferroni (or any other) correction:
I have 1,000,000 hypotheses that are not mutually exclusive.
1. I test them all. Do I apply the Bon
