" = (2/) 20exp (– 2 ) d = 0.9953.Thus, the rule that recommends to assume that|a – x | ≤ 2/hn (62)has confidence probability " = 0.9953. In order to ascertain definitively the meaning <strong>and</strong> thepractical importance of the notion of confidence probability, let us dwell on this example.Suppose that we want to apply the rule (62) in some sequence of cases E 1 , E 2 , …, E n . Thevalues of a k , h k , <strong>and</strong> n k correspond to each of the cases E k . However, absolutelyindependently of these values, the probability of the inequality| xk– a k | ≤ 2/h k n k (62 k )in this case is " = 0.9953. If the systems of x i ’s which correspond here to the different E k ’sare independent one from another, then the events A k consisting in that the appropriateinequalities (62 k ) are valid, are also independent. Owing to the Bernoulli theorem, given thiscondition <strong>and</strong> a sufficiently large N, the frequency M/N of these inequalities being obeyed inthe sequence of cases E k will be arbitrarily close to " = 0.9953.Consequently, in anysufficiently long series of independent cases E k the rule (62) will lead to correct results inabout 99.5% of all cases, <strong>and</strong> to wrong results in approximately 0.5%. For justifying thisconclusion it is only necessary that the set of the considered cases E 1 , E 2 , …, E N bedetermined beforeh<strong>and</strong> independently of the values of the x i ’s obtained by observation.Bernstein indicated a clever example of a misunderst<strong>and</strong>ing that is here possible if noattention is paid to this circumstance 12 .After all this, a warning against a wide-spread mistake 13 seems almost superfluous.Namely, the equality for the unconditional probabilityP(|a – x | ≤ 2/hn) = 0.9953follows ifP(|a – x | ≤ 2/hn|a; h) = 0.9953 (63)for all possible values of a <strong>and</strong> h. However, it does not at all follow from (63) that for anyfixed values of (1)P(|a – x | ≤ 2/hn|x 1 ; x 2 ; …; x n ) = 0.9953.In concluding this section, I note that it is sometimes necessary to consider the rules forestablishing confidence limits for an estimated parameter which do not possess any definiteconfidence probability. In such cases, the part similar to that of confidence probability isplayed by the lower bound" = inf P( ≤ ≤ |, 1 , 2 , …, n )of the conditional probability for the validity of the inequalities ≤ ≤ at variouscombinations of the values of the parameters , 1 , 2 , …, n . Following Neyman, this lowerbound has been called the coefficient of confidence of the given rule 14 .
6. A Sensible Choice of Confidence Limits Corresponding to a Given Confidence<strong>Probability</strong>. After what was said in §5, the following formulation of the problem ofestimating a parameter given (1) becomes underst<strong>and</strong>able. For each " (0 < " < 1) it isrequired to determine, as functions " <strong>and</strong> " of (1), <strong>and</strong>, if necessary, of parameters whichare assumed to be known in the given problem, such confidence limits for that the rulerecommending to assume that " ≤ ≤ " has confidence probability equal to ".The problem thus expressed is not always solvable. When its solution is impossible, wehave to turn to rules of estimating the parameter lacking a certain confidence probability<strong>and</strong> to apply the concept of coefficient of confidence indicated at the end of §5. On the otherh<strong>and</strong>, in many cases the formulated problem admits, for each ", not one, but many solutions.From among these, it is natural to prefer such that lead to shorter confidence intervals [ " ; " ]. I intend to devote another paper to considering, in a general outline, the problem ofdiscovering such most effective rules possessing a given confidence probability (or a givencoefficient of confidence).For Problems 1 – 3 the following simplifications in formulating the issue aboutdiscovering which sensible confidence limits for a <strong>and</strong> h are natural.1. It is natural to restrict our attention to considering confidence limits depending, when n<strong>and</strong> " are given, in addition to the parameters supposed to be known, only on thecorresponding sufficient statistics 15 or sufficient systems of statistics. We will thereforeassume that, in Problem 1, the confidence limits a <strong>and</strong> a only depend on h <strong>and</strong> x ; inProblem 2, the confidence limits h <strong>and</strong> h only depend on a <strong>and</strong> S; <strong>and</strong>, in problem 3, a <strong>and</strong>a, h <strong>and</strong> h only depend on x <strong>and</strong> S 1 .2. It is natural to wish 16 that the rules for determining confidence limits be invariant withrespect to change of scale; of the origin; <strong>and</strong> of the choice of the positive direction along theOx axis, i.e., with respect to transformationsx* = kx + b (64)where b is an arbitrary real number <strong>and</strong> k is an arbitrary real number differing from zero.Under this transformation, a, h, x , S, <strong>and</strong> S 1 are replaced bya* = ka + b, h* = h/|k|, x * = k x + b, S* = |k|S, S 1 * = |k|S 1 .This dem<strong>and</strong> of invariance is reduced to the fulfilment of the following relations, givenfixed n <strong>and</strong> ", for any real k 0 <strong>and</strong> b <strong>and</strong> a, a, h <strong>and</strong> h being functions of the argumentsindicated above in Item 1:Problem 1: a(h*¸ x *) = k a(h; x ) + b, a(h*¸ x *) = ka(h; x ) + b.Problem 2: h*(a*; S*) = h(a; S)/|k|, h(a*; S*) = h(a; S)/|k|.Problem 3: a( x *; S 1 *) = ka( x ; S 1 ) + b, a( x *; S 1 *) = ka( x ; S 1 ) + b,h( x *; S 1 ) = h( x ; S 1 )/|k|, h( x *; S 1 *) = h( x ; S 1 )/|k|.Issuing from Dem<strong>and</strong>s 1 <strong>and</strong> 2, we may conclude that the confidence limits should havethe forma = x – A 0 /h, a = x + A 0 /h; h = B/S, h = B/S, (65, 66)a 1 = x – C 0 S 1 , a 1 = x + C 0 S 1 ; h 1 = B 1 /S 1 ; h 1 = B 1 /S 1 (67, 68)for Problems 1, 2 <strong>and</strong> 3 respectively. Here, for a fixed n, A 0 , B, B, C 0 , B 1 , <strong>and</strong> B 1 onlydepend on ". If
- Page 3:
of All Countries and to the Entire
- Page 6 and 7:
(Coll. Works), vol. 4. N.p., 1964,
- Page 8 and 9:
individuals of the third class, the
- Page 10:
From the theoretical point of view
- Page 13 and 14:
Second case: Each crossing can repr
- Page 15 and 16:
On the other hand, for four classes
- Page 17 and 18:
f i = i S + i , i = 1, 2, 3, 4, (
- Page 19 and 20:
f 1 = C 1 P(f 1 ; …; f n+1 ), C 1
- Page 21 and 22:
ut in this case f = 2 , f 1 = 2 ,
- Page 23 and 24:
I also note the essential differenc
- Page 25 and 26:
A 1 23n1 + 1 A 1 A 1 … A 11A 2 A
- Page 27 and 28:
coefficient of 2 in the right side
- Page 29 and 30:
h(A r h - c h A r 0 ) = - A r0we tr
- Page 31 and 32:
Notes1. Our formulas obviously pres
- Page 33 and 34:
Bernstein’s standpoint regarding
- Page 35 and 36:
Corollary 1.8. A true proposition c
- Page 37 and 38:
It is important to indicate that al
- Page 39 and 40:
ut for the simultaneous realization
- Page 41 and 42:
devoid of quadratic divisors and re
- Page 43 and 44:
propositions (B i and C j ) can be
- Page 45 and 46:
A ~ A 1 and B = B 1 , we will have
- Page 47 and 48:
included in a given totality as equ
- Page 49 and 50:
For unconnected totalities we would
- Page 51 and 52:
proposition given that a second one
- Page 53 and 54:
On the other hand, let x be a parti
- Page 55 and 56:
totality is perfect, but that the j
- Page 57 and 58:
In this case, all the finite or inf
- Page 59 and 60:
probabilities p 1 , p 2 , … respe
- Page 61 and 62:
where x is determined by the inequa
- Page 63 and 64:
totality of the second type (§3.1.
- Page 65 and 66:
x = /2 + /(23) + … + /(23… p n
- Page 67 and 68:
that the fall of a given die on any
- Page 69 and 70:
infinitely many digits only dependi
- Page 71 and 72:
10. (§2.1.5). Such two proposition
- Page 73 and 74:
F(x + h) - F(x) = Mh, therefore F(x
- Page 75 and 76:
“confidence” probability is bas
- Page 77 and 78:
x1+ Lp n (x) x1− Lx1+ Lf(t)dt < x
- Page 79 and 80:
|(x 1 ; t 0 ; t 1 ) - 1 t0tf(t)dt|
- Page 81 and 82:
5. The distribution ofξ , the arit
- Page 83 and 84:
P(x 1i < x) = F(x; a i ) = C(a i )
- Page 85 and 86:
egards his promises. Markov shows t
- Page 87 and 88:
other solely and equally possible i
- Page 89 and 90:
notion of probability and of its re
- Page 91 and 92:
However, already in the beginning o
- Page 93 and 94:
the revolution. My main findings we
- Page 95 and 96:
Nevertheless, Slutsky is not suffic
- Page 97 and 98:
path that would completely answer h
- Page 99 and 100:
on political economy as well as wit
- Page 101 and 102:
scientific merit. Borel was indeed
- Page 103 and 104:
[3] Already in Kiev Slutsky had bee
- Page 105 and 106:
different foundation. The difficult
- Page 107 and 108:
5. On the criterion of goodness of
- Page 109 and 110:
--- (1999, in Russian), Slutsky: co
- Page 111 and 112:
Here also, the author considers the
- Page 113 and 114:
second, it is not based on assumpti
- Page 115 and 116:
experimentation and connected with
- Page 117 and 118:
Russian, and especially of the Sovi
- Page 119 and 120:
station in England. This book, as h
- Page 121 and 122: Uspekhi Matematich. Nauk, vol. 10,
- Page 123 and 124: variety and detachment of those lat
- Page 125 and 126: 46. On the distribution of the regr
- Page 127 and 128: 119. On the Markov method of establ
- Page 129 and 130: No lesser difficulties than those e
- Page 131 and 132: Separate spheres of work considerab
- Page 133 and 134: 10. Anderson, O. Letters to Karl Pe
- Page 135 and 136: Hier sind, im Allgemeinen, ganz ana
- Page 137 and 138: Jedenfalls, glaube ich erwiesen zu
- Page 139 and 140: werde ich das ganze Material in kur
- Page 141 and 142: considered as the limiting case of
- Page 143 and 144: and, inversely,] = m ...1 2 N[ ch h
- Page 145 and 146: µ 2 2 = m 2 2 - 2m 2 m 1 2 + m 1 4
- Page 147 and 148: (x k - x k+1 ) … (x k - x +) = E(
- Page 149 and 150: the thus obtained relations as pert
- Page 151 and 152: [1/S(S - 1)(S - 2)][(Si = 1Sx i ) 3
- Page 153 and 154: ( N −1)((S − N )(2NS− 3S− 3
- Page 155 and 156: µ 5 + 2µ 2 µ 3 = U [S/S] 5 + 2U
- Page 157 and 158: case, the same property is true wit
- Page 159 and 160: It follows that the question about
- Page 161 and 162: then expressed my doubts). And Gned
- Page 163 and 164: For Problem 1, formula (7) shows th
- Page 165 and 166: Let us calculate now, by means of f
- Page 167 and 168: ϕ′1(x)1E(a|x 1 ; x 2 ; …; x n
- Page 169 and 170: Theorem 3. If the prior density 3
- Page 171: P( ≤ ≤ |, 1 , 2 , …, s )
- Page 175 and 176: 0 = A 0 n, = B2, = B2, 0 = C 0 n
- Page 177 and 178: Note also that (95),(96), (83),(85)
- Page 179 and 180: Γ(n / 2)Γ [( n −1) / 2]k = (1/2
- Page 181 and 182: f (x 1 , x 2 , …, x n ) = 1 if x
- Page 183 and 184: and the probability of achieving no
- Page 185 and 186: E = kEµ. (14)In many particular ca
- Page 187 and 188: a = np, b = np 2 = a 2 /n, = a/nand
- Page 189 and 190: with number (2k - 2), we commit an
- Page 191 and 192: (67)which is suitable even without
- Page 193 and 194: " = 1/[1 - e - ], = - ln [1 - (1/
- Page 195 and 196: Such structures are entirely approp
- Page 197 and 198: 11. As a result of its historical d
- Page 199 and 200: exaggeration towards a total denial