Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
For example, in the conditional statement: "If P then Q", Q is necessary for P, because the truth of Q is guaranteed by the truth of P. (Equivalently, it is impossible to have P without Q , or the falsity of Q ensures the falsity of P .) [ 1 ] Similarly, P is sufficient for Q , because P being true always implies that Q is true, but P not being ...
An example of Neyman–Pearson hypothesis testing (or null hypothesis statistical significance testing) can be made by a change to the radioactive suitcase example. If the "suitcase" is actually a shielded container for the transportation of radioactive material, then a test might be used to select among three hypotheses: no radioactive source ...
The hypothesis in the induction step, that the statement holds for a particular n, is called the induction hypothesis or inductive hypothesis. To prove the induction step, one assumes the induction hypothesis for n and then uses this assumption to prove that the statement holds for n + 1 .
Lindley's paradox is a counterintuitive situation in statistics in which the Bayesian and frequentist approaches to a hypothesis testing problem give different results for certain choices of the prior distribution.
The hypothesis of Andreas Cellarius, showing the planetary motions in eccentric and epicyclical orbits. A hypothesis (pl.: hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. A scientific hypothesis must be based on observations and make a testable and reproducible prediction about reality, in a process beginning with an educated guess or ...
On the other hand, one can affirm with certainty that "if someone does not live in California" (non-Q), then "this person does not live in San Diego" (non-P). This is the contrapositive of the first statement, and it must be true if and only if the original statement is true. Example 2. If an animal is a dog, then it has four legs. My cat has ...
This is so because any falsifying observation is embedded in a theoretical background, which can be modified in order to save the hypothesis. Karl Popper acknowledged this but maintained that a critical approach respecting methodological rules that avoided such immunizing stratagems is conducive to the progress of science.
Problems 1, 2, 5, 6, [a] 9, 11, 12, 15, and 22 have solutions that have partial acceptance, but there exists some controversy as to whether they resolve the problems. That leaves 8 (the Riemann hypothesis), 13 and 16 [b] unresolved. Problems 4 and 23 are considered as too vague to ever be described as solved; the withdrawn 24 would also be in ...