[R] chi square table

[Peter Dalgaard]

Berwin A Turlach wrote:


> <rant on>
> That's the problem with introductory textbook whose author think they
> do the students a favour by using notation as z_alpha, z_0.01,
> z_(alpha/2) instead of z_(1-alpha), z_0.99, z_(1-alpha/2),
> respectively.  In my opinion this produces in the long run only
> more confusion and does not help students at all.  It just panders to
> intellectual laziness of (some) students and shows a great deal of
> confusion on the side of the authors.
> I would search another textbook
> <rand off>

Exposure to certain groups of students might change your opinions
there.... Some of us have been teaching to people who have trouble
calculating "21% of the number of boys" so you really don't want to
throw them further off their feet by relying on mathematical nitty-gritty.

(Actually, I don't think you see z_alpha that much. It's more like "tail
area", "P value", "Two sided P value".)

-- 
   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Øster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph:  (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk)              FAX: (+45) 35327907