37
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 269:
Line 269: + +
Talk:Significance of E. Coli Evolution Experiments (view source)
Revision as of 12:48, March 25, 2009
, 12:48, March 25, 2009Experiment two
::::I asked a colleague to run just such a brute-force program for me on the first replay data. I also ran several Monte Carlo simulations ('''not''' using Statsistics101) with Blount's data, using twenty-five million, one hundred million, and 493,819,200 resamplings - note that this last is twenty times the number of all possible combinations of 4 samples drawn without replacement from 72. The p-values from the 25M, 100M, and 493M Monte Carlo resamplings (0.00844, 0.00846, and 0.00846, respectively) compare favorably with Blount's 1M value of 0.0085 and the non-Monte-Carlo brute-force exact calculation, which provides a p-value of 0.008457. Thus it appears that Blount's statistical results are confirmed by a ''non-Monte Carlo'' technique, at least for the first replay experiment.
::::I asked a colleague to run just such a brute-force program for me on the first replay data. I also ran several Monte Carlo simulations ('''not''' using Statsistics101) with Blount's data, using twenty-five million, one hundred million, and 493,819,200 resamplings - note that this last is twenty times the number of all possible combinations of 4 samples drawn without replacement from 72. The p-values from the 25M, 100M, and 493M Monte Carlo resamplings (0.00844, 0.00846, and 0.00846, respectively) compare favorably with Blount's 1M value of 0.0085 and the non-Monte-Carlo brute-force exact calculation, which provides a p-value of 0.008457. Thus it appears that Blount's statistical results are confirmed by a ''non-Monte Carlo'' technique, at least for the first replay experiment.
:::::What do you get for the experiment two p-value using the method from the paper and at least ten million realizations? [[User:SJohnson|SJohnson]] 08:48, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
::::My intention is not to get caught up in a digression about Monte Carlo, though - I'd rather keep the focus on the fact that the main article should acknowledge that SJohnson is using chi-square in a way that violates accepted guidelines; this remains true whether Blount's analysis is valid or not.--[[User:ElyM|ElyM]] 12:13, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
::::My intention is not to get caught up in a digression about Monte Carlo, though - I'd rather keep the focus on the fact that the main article should acknowledge that SJohnson is using chi-square in a way that violates accepted guidelines; this remains true whether Blount's analysis is valid or not.--[[User:ElyM|ElyM]] 12:13, 23 March 2009 (EDT)