Question about two sample t-test (unpaired)

  • Thread starter Thread starter chever
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    T-test
chever
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I have read that the statistic computed for the unpaired two sample t-test is:

t = \frac{\bar{x} - \bar{y}}{\sqrt{SEM_x + SEM_y}}

where:

SEM_x = \frac{\sigma^2_x}{n_x}

(and likewise for y).

Part of this makes sense: it is satisfactorily proven to me that that Var(\bar{x} - \bar{y}) = Var(\bar{x}) + Var(\bar{y}) when the two variables are independent. Then the denominator is the standard deviation of the term \bar{x} - \bar{y}). What doesn't make sense is that the numerator isn't normalized. In the one sample t-test, one computes:

t = \frac{\bar{x} - \mu_x}{\sqrt{SEM_x}}

so, here, \bar{x} is normalized with \mu_x. I don't see why this shouldn't also apply to the two-sample case. Can someone enlighten me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the two-sample t-test, you're testing whether the two samples are different from each other; that is, whether the mean of the difference between them is zero. You can think of the numerator as having an implicit 0 subtracted from it, if you like.
 
pmsrw3 said:
In the two-sample t-test, you're testing whether the two samples are different from each other; that is, whether the mean of the difference between them is zero. You can think of the numerator as having an implicit 0 subtracted from it, if you like.

That clarifies matters a bit. Thank you.
 
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