1-cdf value vs chi-squared statistic mislabeled on site?

nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
243
I am confused by the labeling of the (only) graph in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson's_chi-squared_test
The values on the vertical axis appear to be the values of 1-(the chi-squared cumulative probability distribution values*)
as I would expect in finding the p-values.
However, this graph is labeled the "chi-squared distribution" -- which is ambiguous enough, but when one clicks on this term under the graph, one is directed to a site where the term means the chi-squared probability density function. But the graph cannot be the probability density function: the values are different*, and a probability density function has probability densities on the vertical axis, not probabilities.
So, is this mislabeled?

(*The pdf and cdf graphs were taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-squared_distribution#Probability_density_function, and individual values, for more precision, from http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc3/calc.aspx?id=11)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The graph isn't actually labeled as the chi-squared distribution. It's merely saying it's a variation of the chi-squared distribution. The density function given on the second page is correct. Chi-squared is just a gamma distribution so it's obvious the first page doesn't show a standard chi-squared. The graph on the first page is just the function of a statistic, not a random variable.
 
ahhhhh. That solves that mystery. Thanks, jwatts.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top