Sentences with phrase «p values just»

Sadly, though, he and the other candidates might actually understand P values just about as well as many practicing scientists — which is to say, not very well at all.

Not exact matches

So valuing Alphabet with just a P / E multiple is effectively valuing that cash at zero.

To determine the companies» P / E ratios, we just need to divide the share price by the earnings - per - share value for each respective company.

The P + values were the same for both recipes and I added Rotel Tomatoes & Chiles instead of using just the green chiles.

Noting that just 1.6 p of every # 1 spent by the UK government goes to development, Sir Tony insists that aid is good value for money.

Astute critics of this method have long observed, though, that a low P value is not really evidence of an effect — it just tells you that you should be surprised to see such data if there is no effect.

That translates to a difference of 31.2 %, which led to a p - value of 0.04, just below the arbitrary but widely used statistically significant cutoff of 0.05.

I sure as heck want a man who values my time and person, not just my V (or p for all you male sugar babies).

I believe deeply that arts education is of great value in and of itself, not only instrumentally; I believe just as emphatically that education in the arts is the business of all of us, from the home and the family to the neighborhood and the village, from the P - 12 school system to higher education to lifelong learning, culminating in the great and defining legacy of our public culture.

It's not just p - value that confused people, there are simply too many pitfalls when novices or even experts apply statistics to real life problems.

So just multiplying the value by P (default) is conservative — it's at least slightly underestimating the value of the bond (but maybe not enough to make up for our optimism in estimating P (default)-RRB-.

The two microcap stocks (DIT & FRD) that passed the Graham Enterprising screen have current price - to - book - value ratios just above the current cut off (p / book of 0.8) for a new stock to be added to the Shadow Stock Portfolio.

The value premium is best accessed by P / B, P / cash flow etc, by owning value ETF's that do just that.

My stock pick this week is IBM, because it pays a dividend and trades at a low P / E, and I just look at those two things and declare myself a value investor.

Its current P / E ratio of 13.5 is just 0.9, or 90 %, times the reference fair - value P / E of 15.

Moreover, in addition to just presenting fairly valued Dividend Champions and Challengers, my more personal motivation is to illustrate to the reader how the P / E ratio of 15 applies to real companies over long - term timeframes.

The shares still appear a bit neglected & misunderstood — averaging just two / three comments monthly on the main message boards, with most investors focused on value & dividends, and no real sign of growth / momentum investors homing in on Record's underlying growth trajectory... Key technical levels here are 40 - 41p & 47 - 47.5 p — a breach of the latter would signal a potentially major break - out from what's been a six & a half year old trading range.

That just leaves a suitable P / E ratio to determine: With 10 % earnings growth in 2012, plus likely 11 % + growth for FY 2013 (barring an exceptional turn of events), I'm comfortable raising my fair value P / E ratio a notch to 11 times.

Since Almonty's paper offer valued Ormonde at just GBP 5.7 p per share (and lower, as AII's share price fell), the board quite rightly rejected it — and Almonty finally conceded defeat at the end of January.

But equally, we may just see the same sorry story drag on, so I'm going to haircut my valuation of the cell phone store business again to a 0.1 P / S fair value, and deduct a year's worth of HQ expense.

If you look at them as just a public company where you want to see what the P / E ratio is and what the discounted cash value — you're never going to get it, right?

wow... its amazing how many people are just realizing that PS + is a good value now, because of this post.

I'm just trying to determine the future value on a ps + membership.

Arguably the simplest is to just to compute the (lower) effective sample size based on the actual size and the estimated autocorrelation, and use that value to determine your probability (p).

Naomi Oreskes seems to think that p values of < 0.05 are just «convention» and apparently knows nothing about standard deviation.

It's just that it's so easy to corrupt — you can «prove» anything with (the misuse of) statistics, especially if you're prepared to accept P values of 0.1 as being significant, RR values very close to unity and confidence intervals which encompass unity (ie no effect), if you're prepared to leave out «inconvenient» results and to gloss over «unfortunate» facts such as lack of biological plausibility, dose response, tiny sample sizes and massive confounding factors.

Just because your p value is 0.04 doesn't mean you've established the result with 96 % certainty, the way you have if you're heads up on the river against an opponent on a two - outter.

The next commit, titled «master is P only, removing old values», changes the platform version in the Compatibility Test Suite from «8.0.0» to just «P» (not labeled Android 9.0 as of yet, which mirrors how Google referred to Android 8.0 merely as Android O for quite some time).