Talk:P-value: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:P-value/Archive 2) (bot |
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
{{Talk header|archive_age=3|archive_units=months|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
||
{{WikiProject Statistics|importance=top}} |
{{WikiProject Statistics|importance=top}} |
||
Revision as of 20:30, 15 July 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the P-value article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Null hypothesis vs. "our hypothesis"
I am referring to the sentence:
As our statistical hypothesis will, by definition, state some property of the distribution, the null hypothesis is the default hypothesis under which that property does not exist.
In subsequent examples, the Null hypothesis is always stated explicitly, e.g. as "data comes from the standard normal distribution", "the coin is fair", etc. There is no example when a property of the distribution is stated and the null hypothesis would be defined as non-existence or a logical negation of the property. Furthermore, "data comes not from N(0,1)" makes little sense as "our statistical hypothesis" because it is too unspecific.
This is especially confusing in the beginning when the reader does not know what is going to be tested.
Would it be better to stick with the Null hypothesis only, state that the test can reject it or not reject it and leave the logic implications to the reader? Or perhaps add a clear example where we can infer acceptance of "our hypothesis" based on rejection of the null hypothesis? Alexander Shekhovtsov (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
p-value, P-value, p value, P value?
What is the best way to use here? I have seen all of these. 130.226.41.15 (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Unnecessary hedging: "Usually, T is a test statistic."
As a reader, if I read "usually" that suggests an exception. But there is no counter-example. A p-value is ALWAYS derived from a a test statistic. Therefore, Wikipedia should drop "usually" in this sentence.
I propose the sentence say "As stated above, T is a test statistic." This matches a sentence earlier in the article, this sentence is present: "The p-value is a function of the chosen test statistic and is therefore a random variable." DavidCJames (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)