Re: Larry Athy and His Logical Analyses.

"Larry Athy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2003, 12:12pm (CST+6), JMB posted here again and
> continued to demonstrate that he does not understand that the
> statistical method I used in my paper can be used with different types
> of problems.  I have explained all of this several times, including just
> a few minutes ago.
> - The "r" value gives us some idea as to how well my two groups are
> related to one another.  The "p" value takes "N" into account and thus
> gives a more meaningful value of relative relationship.  In the even
> that they are not related, "r"= 0 and "p" =1. A "p" > .05 has no meaning
> in this type analysis.

Something Larry has made up.  Williams doesn't give this method.  Nobody
does.  In the Williams book, the method given is to assume a null hypothesis
of r = 0.  Then you work out what the chances are of getting the r value
that you actually got if the real r should be 0.  Getting a p < .01 means
that there should be less that one in 100 chance of getting your r value if
the true r was 0.  It does not mean that there is over 99% correlation
between the sets.  Williams never claims that the p value means what Larry
claims it means, and I can't even see anywhere that Williams says something
that could be honestly confused with such a meaning.

>                Regards,  Larry Athy, P.E.
>
>
>
>

-- 
John Byrne
www.iol.ie/~archaeology
To email me use the feedback form on the website.
The address attached to this post is just a spam trap.