196 reputation
7
bio website karelbilek.com
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 11 months
seen Aug 15 '13 at 13:31

Aug
13
comment Are all infinities equal?
Sorry for my ramblings :)
Aug
13
comment Are all infinities equal?
(disclaimer: I am really not mathematician.) To me, those kind of answers are a little disorienting. I might get too philosophical, but as I understand it, explaining basic comparisons by set theory is kind of backwards. We already DO have intuitive understanding what "bigger" is, and the mathematic defin. has to FIT into that. Math wants to model our intuitive understanding of the world. Now, when someone asks, "why is 2>1?", I think the correct answer is n't "definition of > is ...", but more "math models our understanding of > in that way, and that is unintuitive because ...".
Aug
3
awarded  Critic
Feb
27
awarded  Nice Question
Jan
8
comment Generalize diagonalization by using permutations
I realized that, and I added a link to some prezentation using exactly the same proof
Jan
8
asked Generalize diagonalization by using permutations
Dec
14
accepted Why “bother” with a null hypothesis at all?
Dec
14
comment Why “bother” with a null hypothesis at all?
A-ha! So, we seek out to reject the null hypothesis with a given certainty, because we care much more about not saying something incorrect rather than about not saying something correct. OK. For me, the key to (at least partially) understanding the null hypothesis testing are the two types of the errors.
Dec
14
comment Why “bother” with a null hypothesis at all?
...because the case, when the hypothesis we want to prove in the first place (guiltiness, treatment having effects) is wrong but we classify it as right (Type I error), is more "costly" then the case when the hypothesis is right but we classify it as wrong (Type II error)?
Dec
14
comment Why “bother” with a null hypothesis at all?
So, if I understand it right, we do all this with null hypotheses so we have as little Type I error as possible?
Dec
14
comment Why “bother” with a null hypothesis at all?
But thanks for the two links. Once I will chew these, I will maybe be a little wiser.
Dec
14
awarded  Commentator
Dec
14
comment Why “bother” with a null hypothesis at all?
But "innocent" and "guilty" are the only two possible results. You cannot be "not guilty" (and not being innocent at the same time).
Dec
14
comment Why “bother” with a null hypothesis at all?
OK, I am maybe confused what "rejecting" means, then. I was under the impression that "rejecting" and "accepting" are logical opposites. In my mental model, if you reject A, you therefore accept (not A). And vice versa.
Dec
14
comment Why “bother” with a null hypothesis at all?
Brian: why not, if you got data, that support it with some confidence? can't you say you proved the null hypothesis and thus, disproved your original hypothesis (which is now called "alternative hypothesis") with that same confidence?
Dec
14
comment Why “bother” with a null hypothesis at all?
Please, elaborate more. Yes, I am using Bayesian probability all the time in my work and the rest of probability theory only time from time.
Dec
14
asked Why “bother” with a null hypothesis at all?
Nov
27
accepted Coin toss bet and gamblers, that bet everything
Nov
27
comment Coin toss bet and gamblers, that bet everything
Extremely helpful answer, thanks!
Nov
27
revised Coin toss bet and gamblers, that bet everything
edited body