Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:48:03.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Tests of Significance, Treated by the Theory of Probability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Harold Jeffreys
Harold Jeffreys*
Affiliation:
St John's College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It often happens that when two sets of data obtained by observation give slightly different estimates of the true value we wish to know whether the difference is significant. The usual procedure is to say that it is significant if it exceeds a certain rather arbitrary multiple of the standard error; but this is not very satisfactory, and it seems worth while to see whether any precise criterion can be obtained by a thorough application of the theory of probability.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 1935 , pp. 203 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Philosophical Society 1935

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* Jeffreys, , Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 29 (1933), 83–7.Google Scholar

* dp in this expression for a probability means the proposition that p lies in a particular range of length dp.

† This is true throughout the paper in analogous pairs of equations.

* Jeffreys, , Scientific Inference, 1931 Google Scholar, Lemma II, equation (8).

* Jeffreys, , Scientific Inference, 66–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

† The analogy is illustrative and not complete. y = 0 here would correspond in Section I to (p − ½) kε = (p′ − ½) k′ε′, not to p = p′.

* Jeffreys, , Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 137 (1932), 78–87.Google Scholar

* Cf. Brunt, , Combination of observations (1931), 165.Google Scholar

* Walker, , Indian Meteor. Mem. 21 (1914)Google Scholar; Q.J.R. Met. Soc. 51 (1925), 337–346 Google Scholar, and later papers.