4 ms·
> Are you sure? I'm absolutely correct in what I said. But it appears that you are correct that that part of physics makes some Gaussian assumptions and, then
by graycat 13y ago
> Are you sure?
I'm absolutely correct in what I said.
But it appears that you are correct that
that part of physics makes some Gaussian
assumptions and, then, has some conventions
based on those assumptions. In this case,
apparently physics is not making its
mathematical assumptions clear and explicit
and is doing sloppy writing. For more
detail, see my longer explanation in
this thread
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7421505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7421505
Maybe the situation is a little like
getting from a little French restaurant
the recipe for French salad
dressing, sauce vinaigrette, making
it at home, and concluding it tasted
better in the little French restaurant.
Hmm .... But the French restaurant
did something not in the recipe --
took a large clove of garlic, peeled it,
cut it in half, and wiped the salad bowl
with the cut surface of the garlic!
The recipe didn't mention that!
- Myrmornis 13y agoI don't think those physicists are making any Gaussian assumptions, right? They're computing a p-value as normal (how often would my test statistic generated under the null be more extreme than observed), and then using the Gaussian distribution as a scale to communicate how small their p-value is.
- gammarator 13y agoThey are definitely making a Gaussian assumption, and wouldn't feel the need to clarify that as it's a widely accepted convention in the field. In your restaurant analogy, it's like you overheard two chefs talking.