Re:Not Even Scientists Can Easily Explain P-values
by evanpw on Wednesday November 25, 2015 @05:14PM
(#10630105)
Let Ω = R (real line), F = the set of Lebesque-measurable subsets of R, and P(E) = the integral over E of the density function of the standard normal. This is a probability space in the Kolmogorov sense, and my previous example carries through perfectly well in this framework. You observe x = 0.7, and compute the probability of the event X >= 0.7 as an integral. There are no ratios, and you don't need to label the observation as agreeing or disagreeing with the null hypothesis.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Not Even Scientists Can Easily Explain P-values
by jsprogrammer on Thursday November 26, 2015 @12:02PM
(#10633738)
See my response here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10630389
You are doing it wrong. A p-value based on a single observation is meaningless. P-values are much more useful when they are continuously computed on a running experiment with sequential observations.
See the work at the LHC for an example.