Timeline for Intuitive explanation of why p is not the probability of the null hypothesis
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 3, 2013 at 19:14 | comment | added | whuber♦ | I do not want to twist this answer, but it seems that the demonstration could be misconstrued as showing that asymptotically, a sufficiently large experiment will produce a p-value that is approximately the same as the "probability of $H_0$." In other words, this (nice) demonstration might not accomplish the learning objectives you believe it does, because it does not appear directly to attack the fundamental misconception (in the frequentist paradigm, of course) that it even makes sense to assign a probability to the null. | |
| Jul 3, 2013 at 18:44 | history | edited | January | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 4 characters in body |
| Jul 3, 2013 at 18:44 | comment | added | January | You are right, I should have not written "consecutive" | |
| Jul 3, 2013 at 17:40 | comment | added | Scortchi♦ | What about the test statistic? After all the probability under the null of heads, followed by tails, then by heads - indeed of any sequence - is also 0.125 | |
| Jul 3, 2013 at 17:34 | history | answered | January | CC BY-SA 3.0 |