JACK TOMSKY: an HISTORIAL of nonsense


Only an absolute ignorant in the Hypotheses Test
matter thinks the following

1) Your assertion that Hypotheses tests and Court
Trials are the same thing,
2) Your belief that the Null Hypotheses could be find
being really true (or the alternative one),
3) The belief that the null hypotheses are true
e equalities, not the statement that is not
sufficient evidence the concerned parameters are
different. They are CONCEPTS not merely term
generalizations, not a Byzantine *nickpick* but
really just within the realm of the matter to which
none is allowed to hesitate. Note that in a) the
persecutor?s identity switch, if detected, we prove
H0, a *forbidden* situation in Hypotheses TestIs
surely on his matters Jack Tomsky should rethink
urgently.


__________licas (Luis A. Afonso)

I wrote:

JACK TOMSKY: an HISTORIAL of nonsense
Only an absolute ignorant in the Hypotheses Test
matter thinks the following
1) Your assertion that Hypotheses tests and Court
Trials are the same thing,
2) Your belief that the Null Hypotheses could be find
being really true (or the alternative one),
3) The belief that the null hypotheses are true
equalities, not the statement that is not sufficient
evidence the concerned parameters are different. They
are CONCEPTS not merely term generalizations, not a
Byzantine *nickpick* but really just within the realm
of the matter to which none is allowed to hesitate.
Note that in a) the persecutor´s identity switch, if
detected, we prove H0, a *forbidden* situation in
Hypotheses Test Is surely on his matters Jack Tomsky
should rethink urgently.***

To which Tomsky replied:
Thanks for listing points which everyone except you
agree on.

Jack***

My reply

IN FACT *tout le monde * is well aware that (even the
biologists)
a) Only apparently court trials and hypotheses tests
are similar,
b) ANY hypotheses is proved by tests: they are merely
a tool to find out if
____there are sufficient evidence (based on data) to
reject H0, or are not. The first result leads us to
conserve H0 (but we are not allowed to declare that
H0 is true, NEVER). The second leads to state that
*there is sufficient evidence of do not accept H0*,
but at the chosen significance level: if you shorten
it successively you will find a value to which you
accept H0.
This dission can be seen in the WEB, find it Tomsky.
c) Consequently the *algebraic notation* in H0
concerning the parameters *equality* are misleading
only to uneducated people, like Jack, the others
shall read *not sufficient evidence , at the chosen
significance level to distinguish the parameter´s
values.

THAT´s ALL, FOLKS

(Thank you Jack Tomsky by your clear statement that
you belief in that nonsense, because now is clear ,
indisputably clear, that you are a ZERO on Hypotheses
Tests.

_______licas (Luis A. Afonso)

If you was A LITTLE MORE CONSCIOUS of your stupidity
and UNLEARNING you will find out ON THE WEB the
following sentence:

*** If we conclude 'do not reject H0', this does not
necessarily mean that the null hypothesis is true, it
only suggests that there is not sufficient evidence
against H0 in favour of H1; rejecting the null
hypothesis then, suggests that the alternative
hypothesis may be true.***

AND the *nutty* is me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHO´s the PECULIAR rotten MINDED?

__________licas (Luis A. Afonso)

If you was A LITTLE MORE CONSCIOUS of your stupidity
and UNLEARNING you will find out ON THE WEB the
following sentence:

*** If we conclude 'do not reject H0', this does not
necessarily mean that the null hypothesis is true, it
only suggests that there is not sufficient evidence
against H0 in favour of H1; rejecting the null
hypothesis then, suggests that the alternative
hypothesis may be true.***

AND the *nutty* is me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHO´s the PECULIAR rotten MINDED?

__________licas (Luis A. Afonso)

Since you've provided no statistical evidence against my null hypothesis, I therefore accept my null hypothesis. My null hypothesis is that the number of papers that you've had accepted in refereed statistical journals is equal to zero.

Jack

AGAINST
Brett Magil and Jack Tomsky
(That are unlearned at a scandalous point.)
IN FACT it can be read in Wikipedia
*** [accepting H0]: There is not enough evidence to
reject the hypothesis. This is not the same as
evidence in favor of the hypothesis. That we cannot
obtain using these arguments, since lack of evidence
against a hypothesis is not evidence for it. On this
basis, statistical research progresses by eliminating
error, not by finding the truth.***
My comment
OF COURSE every first course in Statistic student is
aware of this pecularity:: teachers THAT KNOW WHAT
ARE SAYING does not fail to point out this feature.
Adding to the same I referred yet on the WEB
*** If we conclude 'do not reject H0', this does not
necessarily mean that the null hypothesis is true, it
only suggests that there is not sufficient evidence
against H0 in favour of H1; rejecting the null
hypothesis then, suggests that the alternative
hypothesis may be true.***
ADDING
A SIMPLE SAMPLE SIZE EVALUATION that all the Readers
should make: (a problem I solved as a University
student, here, in Portugal).
*** FROM a normal population N(0, 1) (that only we
know that is normal and sigma=1, mean unknown) we
intend draw a random sample. What should be the
minimum size in order not to reject ___H0 : the mean
is at most 0.000´001 at the 0.001 significance level
(one tailed test, Z = 3.090), against___Ha : mean
greater than 0.000´001.



***
NOTE THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT, (MUST LESS DEMANDING)
THAN IF
*********
I INTENDED TO KNOW THAT THE MEAN IS ZERO , WHICH
CANNOT BE REACHED for finte sample sizes. THEREFORE
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE IN PRACTICE.
_____licas (Luis A. Afonso)
.

With the *skilfulness* you has been show regarding
Statistics all your *papers* are suspect that you,
all you lifetime, hitchhike the people really
technically qualified.(I guess).
You are so miserable minded (and conscious of your
unlearning) that you never answer objectively to the
statistical questions I pose.
______ licas (Luis A. Afonso)