Why does Chi-square formula have two different ones?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EigenCake
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the two different Chi-square formulas found in various sources. One formula is derived from the definition of the Chi-squared distribution, while the other applies it to observed versus expected frequencies. The first reference explains the distribution of a random variable formed from squared standard-normal variables. The second reference suggests using the formula (O-E)^2/E for goodness of fit tests to evaluate the null hypothesis. Ultimately, the second formula is recommended for practical applications in hypothesis testing.
EigenCake
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
One is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-squared_distribution

where at the bottom of the page, chi-square = sum of something devided by variance.

However, here:
http://www.napce.org/documents/research-design-yount/23_chisq_4th.pdf

where the chi-square formula is that the sum of the same thing devided by expectation value.

Which formula is right then?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The first reference is the definition of Chi-squared :- the distribution of a RV formed from the sum of squared standard-normal random variables.

The second reference is an application of the above distribution to the case of expect versus observed frequencies, where (O-E)/sqrt(E) is asymptotically standard-normal and hence (O-E)^2/E is asymptotically Chi-squared.
 
Thanks!

It seems that for goodness of fit I should use the second formula to either reject or accept the null hypothesis, rather than use the first formula.
 
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top