What was it some politician, ages ago, said about "Lies, damned lies
and ..." ? ;-)
Chris
(who last year finished doing a stats refresher during an MBA)
On 17 Dec 2006, at 00:27, Nick Wilson wrote:
> Getting there! I have run a test for normality on the data and in the
> old-fashioned statistical model the resulting P-value of 0.78
> (N=71) is
> far, far above the significance required to reject the hypothesis that
> the list is abnormal. Put another way, there is a 78% probability the
> list is 'normal'. It would be higher apart from some oddities like the
> absence of 58-61 year olds, given the number of 62-63 year olds and an
> absence of 30 year olds.
>
> For what it is worth, the 'skewness' of the list is very low as
> well...hence, we are not only normal, but non-skewed as well. OK,
> this
> means the age distribution, but where is the fun in that?
>
> It is interesting that the median and mean are basically the
> same...again shows how normal we are!
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|