Clarifying a Jack Tomsky’s remark

By the 100th time, the last on Jul 12, 12:59 pm,
the IMBECILE Jack Tomsky fund fun in an equation I
posted much time ago, namely

H0: 5/13 <= 8/13 (alpha = 5%)
Ha: 5/13 > 8/13

Saying that (oh surprise!!!) that it was absolutely
true and that it need not be submitted to test
repeating what other IMBECILE (Reef Fish = Bob Ling)
said yet.
Typically, out of context he firstly erased the (5%),
then he did not inform he Readers that the problem
concerns the difference on two Binomial Proportions,
the equation above was a symbolic one, the symbol x/n
meaning explicitly x successes observed in n trials,
finally he * forgot * that it was the result of I
applied the exact Clopper - Pearson intervals: ONE
MORE EXAMPLE WHAT Jack Tomsky unethical way to
behave.
I naively introduced the above notation , I had the
care to explain its meaning, supposing that was
directing to European academic people that do not use
such SCARFACE methods Jack is so proud.
By my surprise the mockery grows and grows intending
to defame me and trying to totally discourage my
further collaboration at Sci. Stat. Math.


Given X~Bin(x, pX=5/13). Y~Bin(y, pY= 8/13) , the
probability that x/13 - y/13 > 0 is equal to
0.0806639457972. The procedure consists to try all
pairs x = 0, 1, 2, …, n and y = 0, 1, 2,…, m and
adding the probabilities such that x/ n - y/ m >0.
Decision one has not sufficient evidence that pX<=
pY.
However if Y~Bin(y, 9/13) one get p=0.03385 < 0.05
and can be stated that pX<= pY.
Other example
X~Bin(x, pX=50/130). Y~Bin(y, pY= 80/130) the
confidence level for pX<= pY is so large as
0.99993798 and we FAIL TO REJECT H0.

In what concerns Jack Tomsky these episodes say
clearly just his ethical ground and way to behave.
Tough it was in Europe and uses this behavior he
swiftly was concerned what the Academia reaction was:
HERE SCARFACES NOT ADDMITANCE.

Luis Amaral Afonso

Luis Amaral Afonso, in self-mockery, has expressed
hypotheses, not in terms of subsets of the parameter
space, but in terms of sample statistics. His null
hypothesis H0: 5/13 <= 8/13 is always true and must
be accepted for all significance levelsThe most
powerful test is to accept H0: 5/13 <= 8/13 if and
only if 5/13 <= 8/13. The fact that 5/13 <= 8/13
follows from the trichotomy property of ordered
algebraic fields. Afonso some time ago demanded that
a moderator be appointed for the list to correct
technical errors. Several people nominated me and I
accepted the position as a volunteer. This has become
a full-time job since Afonso's posts provide a
never-ending source of material. Jack (moderator).



My COMMENT

__1__Those that claim ***5/13 <= 8/13*** ARE
SUPERMOST OPAQUE. I had yet said that is a
conventional way, I found, to write the Null
Hypotheses.

__2__Jack Tomsky (similarly to other points: he, in
his paranoia, states that R. A. Fisher is wrong,
however giving not the reasons, in not accept the
Null Hypotheses!!!) knows anything relative to this
point THE CLOPPER- PEARSON CONFIDENCE INTERVALS, that
, I, simply and directly applied to the difference
between two Binomial proportions.

__3__A point he met the first time, thanks to me, is
the Dvoretzky -Kiefer-Wolfowitz (called * simply *
the Fundamental Theorem of Statistics) which allow us
, since 60 years ago, have a basis to check what
distance exists between a theoretical and a simulate
distribution. The importance is so big that one can
get the critical values of any r.v. since we are able
to simulate the data. HE CLAIMS, IN HIS IGNORANT
FOOLISNESS, THAT THIS PROCEDURE IS ILLEGAL because no
real data is really present!!!

That is, from a celebrate fight with R. A. Fisher
felt winner, from Clopper and Pearso too, finally
from the multitude of tests issued from Monte Carlo
simulations (the older one from Herbert Lilliefors,
Lilliefors Test) he states they are worthless.

__4__Who appointed Jack Tomsky? When the elction
n take place? Why the Readers had not be notified?
How many candidates were? I SURELY DID NOT WILL GIVE
MY VOTE, and I think that many Readers will not too.

__0__I claim to be published the names (real, not pen
or nick)of those sustaining a CLOWN like this one!

*** Afonso repeatedly defamed Lielliefors by falsely
accusing him of constructing confidence intervals.
This shows that he never understood Hubert's work.
And that's his favorite paper in the literature.***

__1__I do not defame anybody: but I’m always
available to point out their IMBECILITIES. Proof? It
is necessary to teach ignorant people that the
Quantiles H. Lilliefors (attention, the name is
exactly as I’m writing) found by simulation, had the
objective to find the bounds of the rejection region
of the exact Test Distribution. Lazy, ignorant and
sloppy educated people, like Jack Tomsky, that is *
virgin * concerning up-to-date in this matters use
Kolmogorov - Smirnov bounds even in the case the
Population mean and standard deviation are estimated
from the sample under test.
__2__Considering I was said above I’ve true and exact
notion what Herbert did: he opens a completely new
way to answer REAL PROBLEMS that theory is unable to
answer till now.

Luis Amaral Afonso [The moderator destroyer]

Clarifying a Jack Tomsky’s remark

By  the 100th time, the last  on Jul 12, 12:59 pm,
the IMBECILE Jack Tomsky fund fun in an equation I
posted much time ago, namely

H0: 5/13 <= 8/13 (alpha = 5%)
Ha: 5/13 > 8/13

Saying that (oh surprise!!!) that it was absolutely
true and that it need not be submitted to test
repeating what other IMBECILE (Reef Fish = Bob Ling)
said yet.
Typically, out of context he firstly erased the (5%),
then he did not inform he Readers that the problem
concerns the difference on two Binomial Proportions,
the equation above was a symbolic one, the symbol x/n
meaning explicitly x successes observed in n trials,
finally he * forgot * that it was the result of I
applied the exact Clopper - Pearson intervals: ONE
MORE EXAMPLE WHAT Jack Tomsky unethical way to
behave.
I naively introduced the above notation , I had the
care to explain its meaning, supposing that was
directing to European academic people that do not use
such SCARFACE methods Jack is so proud.
By my surprise the mockery grows and grows intending
to defame me and trying to totally discourage my
further collaboration at Sci. Stat. Math.

Given  X~Bin(x, pX=5/13). Y~Bin(y, pY= 8/13) , the
probability that x/13 - y/13 > 0 is equal to
0.0806639457972. The procedure consists to try all
pairs x = 0, 1, 2, …, n and y = 0, 1, 2,…, m and
adding the probabilities such that x/ n - y/ m >0.
Decision one has not sufficient evidence that pX<> > pY.
However if Y~Bin(y, 9/13) one get p=0.03385 < 0.05
and can be stated that pX<= pY.
Other example
X~Bin(x, pX=50/130). Y~Bin(y, pY= 80/130) the
confidence level for pX<= pY is so large as
0.99993798 and we FAIL TO REJECT H0.

Since pX is assumed to be known as 50/130 and pY is assumed to be known as 80/130, the confidence level on the point pX = 50/130 and pY = 80/130 is automatically 100%.

In what concerns Jack Tomsky these episodes say
clearly just his ethical ground and way to behave.
Tough it was in Europe and uses this behavior he
swiftly was concerned what the Academia reaction was:
HERE SCARFACES NOT ADDMITANCE.

Luis Amaral Afonso

Luis Amaral Afonso, in self-mockery, has expressed hypotheses, not in terms of subsets of the parameter space, but in terms of sample statistics.  His null hypothesis H0: 5/13 <= 8/13 is always true and must be accepted for all significance levels.  

The most powerful test is to accept H0: 5/13 <= 8/13 if and only if 5/13 <= 8/13.  The fact that 5/13 <= 8/13 follows from the trichotomy property of ordered algebraic fields.

Afonso some time ago demanded that a moderator be appointed for the list to correct technical errors.  Several people nominated me and I accepted the position as a volunteer.  This has become a full-time job since Afonso's posts provide a never-ending source of material.  

Jack (moderator)- Ocultar texto citado -

- Mostrar texto citado -

My response

If you are unable to understand what I mean
please ask for Mam and Dad to give you a new little
brother : he can
be a little smart you are.

Luis Amaral Afonso [the moderator destroyer]

Lazy, ignorant and
sloppy educated people, like Jack Tomsky, that is *
virgin * concerning up-to-date in this matters use
_________________^^^^^^^^^^^

Lazy, ignorant and
sloppy educated people, like Jack Tomsky, that is *
virgin * concerning  up-to-date in this matters use

_________________^^^^^^^^^^^

HA HA HA!

Afonso, who writes his "statistical" code in BASIC cannot accuse ANYONE EXCEPT HIMSELF of not being up-to-date.

WHAT A JOKE IS AFONSO!

John Smith

WORMTOMSKY said:

*** Afonso has expressed hypotheses in terms of test
statistics instead of parameters, has called
Quantiles of test statistics "confidence intervals"
and has called p-values "significance levels. He
denies that the sample lies in the sample space. He
needs to take a course in Statistics 101. Jack
(moderator) ***

My response
__A liar and a BRUNDLE

__1__THE LIAR____I do not never made confusion
between a statistic (a function of data) and a
parameter (a constant characterizing the
Distribution),
__2__THE BRUNDLE___Once the Statistics simulated by
Monte Carlo its fractiles provided the Critical
Values: Herbert Lilliefors open a DOOR to a guard
that obtuse Mathematicians with their own tools were
unable to find solution, analytically.. THEY PREFER
TO HAVE EXACT SOLUTIONS TO MORE OR LESS CLOSE
PROBLEMS THAN TO HAVE GOOD APPROXIMATIONS TO THE
E REAL ONES UNDER STUDY.
Furthermore the degree of approximation is rigorously
controlled by a 70 years result: the Dvoretzky-
Kiefer-Wolfowitz that Jack Tomsky did not met before
I presented it HERE. I clearly jumped thought TWO
YEARS AGO (or so). Effectively I said that Herbert
Lilliefors found Confidence Intervals, a correction
if made once, was to be accepted and acknowledged, as
I did, if repeated daily only shows what Jack Tomsky
is: unfair, ethically deficient, and trying, using no
matter means, erase his BRUNDLES (much more serious,
indeed, than my improper attribution). STINGY people
do not lose n opportunity to show is stinginess. In
his stupidity he is unable, even at present, to
understand what marvelous tool Lilliefors brought to
PRACTICAL STATISTICS. He shall never do.
__3__He denies that the sample lies in the sample
space: THIS IS A LIE, Readers, THE BRUNDLE was from
Jack Tomsky that *** the samples are in the
parameter’s SPACE *** to what I reply in these terms:
NOT AT ALL the samples are too rough to enter in a
space that is an INTERVAL. This boy is STUPID,
STINGY; MACHIEVOUS and LIAR
************************
I had forgotten a very important Jack Tomsky
inaccuracy
____Test Hypotheses ARE NOT EXCLUSIVELY CONCERNING
PARAMETERS.
___ TO KIND OF THEM DO NOT HAVING TO DO WITH THEM:
____The GOODNESS OF RITTING (GOF),
____ AND the NO-PARAMETRIC
it´s logic to think that Jack Tomsky never find them
(exactly alike in what concerns TESTS BY
SIMULATION).


Luis Amaral Afonso [The moderator (???) destroyer]