<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SMBrain Thurs Jan 17</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~kass/smbrain/?feed=rss2&#038;p=236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~kass/smbrain/?p=236</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:10:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: cpw17</title>
		<link>http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~kass/smbrain/?p=236#comment-256</link>
		<dc:creator>cpw17</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:01:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~kass/smbrain/?p=236#comment-256</guid>
		<description>I haven&#039;t finished the readings yet, but I found the recasting of standard descriptive statistics (i.e. mean, variance, s.e.) as probability functions to be helpful in connecting with my prior understanding. Based on the discussions of uncertainty, it sounds as though many statistical tests are just formalized means of summarizing means/variances into a singular distribution that assumes no measured difference. Thus the &#039;significance&#039; testing is the logic of what&#039;s outside of the confidence interval. Is that close or way off base?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I haven&#8217;t finished the readings yet, but I found the recasting of standard descriptive statistics (i.e. mean, variance, s.e.) as probability functions to be helpful in connecting with my prior understanding. Based on the discussions of uncertainty, it sounds as though many statistical tests are just formalized means of summarizing means/variances into a singular distribution that assumes no measured difference. Thus the &#8216;significance&#8217; testing is the logic of what&#8217;s outside of the confidence interval. Is that close or way off base?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: amweinst</title>
		<link>http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~kass/smbrain/?p=236#comment-253</link>
		<dc:creator>amweinst</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:42:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~kass/smbrain/?p=236#comment-253</guid>
		<description>I was confused by Slutsky&#039;s theorem and how it was applied on page 198 (in 7.3.5) to derive the confidence interval. It&#039;s not apparent to me how this application aids in the use of 7.21 and 7.22. 
In addition, I found it a bit difficult to keep the nomenclature straight. If we could have a brief review of what T, theta represent that could be very useful, as at the moment they are scattered throughout the chapters often in sections that we are not assigned to read. Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was confused by Slutsky&#8217;s theorem and how it was applied on page 198 (in 7.3.5) to derive the confidence interval. It&#8217;s not apparent to me how this application aids in the use of 7.21 and 7.22.<br />
In addition, I found it a bit difficult to keep the nomenclature straight. If we could have a brief review of what T, theta represent that could be very useful, as at the moment they are scattered throughout the chapters often in sections that we are not assigned to read. Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

