Ask a question

If There Are Any Statistically

If there are any statistically?

You have the course taught you handle methods to see if there are any statistically demonstrable difference between the two expected values​​, ie, to see if is reasonable to assume that the two expected values ​​differ. Another common task is to see if two variables standard deviations can be as large, that is, if σ1 = σ2
One way to do this is to form a confidence interval for the ratio σ1 / σ2. Assume that such a range have been constructed. In which of the following cases, you can say that there is no statistically detectable difference between the two standard deviations?

What time of the day is is statistically safest to fly commercially?

The chances of an accident are so small that any variation in time of day is statistically insignificant. The fatal accident rate of most major commercial airlines is well under one accident for every one million departures.

If the morning is safer, it won't be due to better visibility. Poor visibility or good visibility can happen at any time of the day. It depends on the weather, not the time. Fewer planes at night probably don't matter because mid-air collisions are virtually unheard of. Some of the accidents that do happen are due to mechanical failure or weather. Neither airplanes or weather know or care which time of day it is.

Statistically, how many people are refusing to fly because of the mandatory scanners and pat downs at airports?

Most people put up with it because right now it's the only system we've got to keep lunatics from carrying box cutters and shoe bombs onboard. If your "physical and mental health" reasons are a big enough factor, then I'd say you are wise for not flying. Others wouldn't want you onboard, and neither would I. If you're saying that the TSA screening actually CAUSES you mental and physical problems, with no underlying preexisting illness, then I'd say you're a sniveling sissy and need to bite the damn bullet. Everyone knows it sucks, even airport and airline personnel. But we're not going to sacrifice the security of air transportation and national airspace because of a few wimps.

EDIT: I see. Well, x-ray and millimeter-wave scanners probably emit less radiation per scan than a dose of UV rays from the sun, though all of those are probably more sensitive for a person in your case. What's curious here is that radiation therapy for cancer (you didn't say if you had radiation but I'm making a point here) absolutely pummels a person with ionizing radiation...including ultra-dangerous gamma rays. But if your cancer is non-malignant, perhaps it is true what some doctors say. An oncologist would need to be educated in both radiation therapy and have some knowledge of other radiation emitting devices... and as yet there's not a heck of a lot of data or that many doctors that know BOTH. As for the pat-downs...well, I can see your point. I've never had the pat down myself. Just scanner and the emptying of pockets thing. I imagine there will be alternatives in the future, but currently it's a real struggle. We don't have a system in place that works for everybody.

Diagnosis rates can differ between ethnic groups. An ethnic group being economically disadvantaged can mean they often don't have the money to see doctors or therapists to be tested and diagnosed. Cultural biases against certain ethnic groups can lead people to feel that odd behavior from a child is because of "bad parenting" or "poor discipline" or "being one of those kids", while a kid from a white upper-middle class family with the exact same behavior would elicit concern. Medical professionals can also be biased or dismissive and fail to diagnose. Or due to a history of bias, a community can develop a mistrust of the medical and psychiatric establishment and prefer to rely on their own community knowledge.Until very recently, the majority of medical trials were done on white people, and usually men. This can mean that symptoms are missed or misinterpreted in women or people from other cultural backgrounds. (Autism can be marked by a lack of eye contact, but what does that mean in a culture where direct eye contact is considered rude?)So yes, there are a lot of sociological factors that can affect diagnosis rates. And that makes it very difficult to tell if there are any actual differences in disease rates.

Are atheists statistically more likely to contract an STD than someone who believes in any religion?

First you have to justify your assumption that atheists are more promiscuous than theists. Every relevant statistic I've seen points to theists being more likely to have an unplanned pregnancy than an atheist, and the devoutly religious have a higher divorce rate than the moderately religious, who themselves have a higher divorce rate than atheist/nonreligious. Atheists are also way underrepresented in prisons and etc etc we've all heard this stuff before.

This may not demonstrate that religion makes people less moral, but it doesn't have to. It only demonstrates that it doesn't make people more moral.

There are two sides of the argument, both are valid.Argument #1:Open carry deters criminals from committing crimes in the first place.Argument #2:If you open carry, and a determined criminal decides to attack the area, he will target you first, therefore taking the advantage. If you concealed carry, you will have the advantage of surprise, as the attacker will likely not suspect you to be carrying.As I said, both sides of the argument are valid. Most criminals are cowards, they look for the weakest target possible, and they are not going to attack somebody who they know has the power to kill them. I’m certain this will deter a criminal more often than not.That said, I’m of the opinion that I would rather retain the element of surprise against a potential determined criminal. I prefer concealed carry, and as long as it’s legal, that would be my preferred form of carry. That’s not to say I would *never* open carry, but if I did, it would mostly be for show, or to make a statement. Unless of course it were the only legal way for me to carry, in which case I would rather open carry than no carry.The one really nice thing about open carry though (which is only legal on private property, or while hunting) would be that I could carry much bigger guns.

Are cancer pisces and scorpio statistically more suicidal than other signs?

Just because they are emotional doesn't mean that they are more likely to commit suicide. Sometimes people commit suicide based on other things that had happened to them other than their emotions and feelings.
If you ask me I think that Gemini's are more suicidal. All the ones that I have know are all suicidal. I don't really know if they will ever do it though. It takes someone with a strong will.
It really depends on how emotional weak someone is in life. There's a book called the power of stars and birthday that indicates how strong someone is in life based on stars. 1 means weakest and 10 strongest which are alphas.
I find it correct because I only have 4 stars and all of my siblings has 6 stars and above. I will always be the shy one, the weakest one, and the most emotional.
I think moon in cancer and other aspects could make a person suicidal also but just the zodiac sign alone can't possibly make someone more suicidal.

How do I find statistical significance between a set of six pairs of numbers?

I have six pairs of numbers. The pairs represent the results of two different conditions. I want to know if there is a statistically significant difference between each pair. I have calculated the percentage change for each and the mean change. What I don't know if the trend is actually (mathematically) significant.
These are the pairs, in case you want to see what kind of numbers I am working with:
0.14 --> 0.17
0.09 --> 0.13
0.1 --> 0.196
0.03 --> 0.088
0.117 --> 0.217
0.148 --> 0.151
This is the percent difference between the pairs:
21%
44%
96%
193%
85%
2%

Mean:
73.50%

PS
Since I only have six pairs, is it possible to get significance?