Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This example will show that, in a sample X 1, X 2 of size 2 from a normal distribution with known variance, the statistic X 1 + X 2 is complete and sufficient. Suppose X 1, X 2 are independent, identically distributed random variables, normally distributed with expectation θ and variance 1. The sum ((,)) = + is a complete statistic for θ.
The theorem states that any estimator that is unbiased for a given unknown quantity and that depends on the data only through a complete, sufficient statistic is the unique best unbiased estimator of that quantity. The Lehmann–Scheffé theorem is named after Erich Leo Lehmann and Henry Scheffé, given their two early papers. [2] [3]
[citation needed] One author uses the terminology of the "Rule of Average Conditional Probabilities", [4] while another refers to it as the "continuous law of alternatives" in the continuous case. [5] This result is given by Grimmett and Welsh [6] as the partition theorem, a name that they also give to the related law of total expectation.
In statistics, sufficiency is a property of a statistic computed on a sample dataset in relation to a parametric model of the dataset. A sufficient statistic contains all of the information that the dataset provides about the model parameters.
Issue 1 would permanently end majority rule in Ohio and give 40 percent of the voters the ability to block the will of the people, Richard A. Stoff writes.
Ohio state Sen. George Lang, R-West Chester speaks before Ohio Sen. JD Vance, the Republican nominee for vice president, takes the stage at Middletown High School Monday, July 22, 2024.
For instance, take x = 1.5, then x is certainly an upper bound of S, since x is positive and x 2 = 2.25 ≥ 2; that is, no element of S is larger than x. However, we can choose a smaller upper bound, say y = 1.45; this is also an upper bound of S for the same reasons, but it is smaller than x, so x is not a least-upper-bound of S.
The appeals court’s 2-1 decision, handed down on August 30, 1995, held that a previous ruling by the state supreme court permitted disparities in education if the state provided for a basic education. [12] Two months later, the coalition appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio. [12]