Mixing
Book on Measure Theoretic Statistics
$begingroup$
I'm looking for a book, preferably a good one, on statistics from a rigorous, measure theoretic point of view. Ideally, this book should be introductory in nature and cover no more nor less than a standard course in (possibly multivariate) statistical inference.
measure-theory statistics reference-request
asked Feb 26 '13 at 17:56
Evan AadEvan Aad
5,57911853
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm looking for a book, preferably a good one, on statistics from a rigorous, measure theoretic point of view. Ideally, this book should be introductory in nature and cover no more nor less than a standard course in (possibly multivariate) statistical inference.
measure-theory statistics reference-request
asked Feb 26 '13 at 17:56
Evan AadEvan Aad
5,57911853
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The closest thing I know is "Testing Statistical Hypotheses" by Lehman and Romano.
$endgroup$
– Michael Greinecker♦
Feb 26 '13 at 18:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm looking for a book, preferably a good one, on statistics from a rigorous, measure theoretic point of view. Ideally, this book should be introductory in nature and cover no more nor less than a standard course in (possibly multivariate) statistical inference.
measure-theory statistics reference-request
asked Feb 26 '13 at 17:56
Evan AadEvan Aad
5,57911853
$endgroup$
I'm looking for a book, preferably a good one, on statistics from a rigorous, measure theoretic point of view. Ideally, this book should be introductory in nature and cover no more nor less than a standard course in (possibly multivariate) statistical inference.
measure-theory statistics reference-request
measure-theory statistics reference-request
asked Feb 26 '13 at 17:56
Evan AadEvan Aad
5,57911853
asked Feb 26 '13 at 17:56
Evan AadEvan Aad
5,57911853
asked Feb 26 '13 at 17:56
Evan AadEvan Aad
5,57911853
asked Feb 26 '13 at 17:56
Evan AadEvan Aad
5,57911853
asked Feb 26 '13 at 17:56
Evan AadEvan Aad
5,57911853
5,57911853
1
$begingroup$
The closest thing I know is "Testing Statistical Hypotheses" by Lehman and Romano.
$endgroup$
– Michael Greinecker♦
Feb 26 '13 at 18:36
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
The closest thing I know is "Testing Statistical Hypotheses" by Lehman and Romano.
$endgroup$
– Michael Greinecker♦
Feb 26 '13 at 18:36
1
1
$begingroup$
The closest thing I know is "Testing Statistical Hypotheses" by Lehman and Romano.
$endgroup$
– Michael Greinecker♦
Feb 26 '13 at 18:36
$begingroup$
The closest thing I know is "Testing Statistical Hypotheses" by Lehman and Romano.
$endgroup$
– Michael Greinecker♦
Feb 26 '13 at 18:36
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I have just the right book for you. Try Theory of Statistics by Michael J. Schervish. It is the only book on measure-theoretic statistics that has received $ 5 $ stars from every person who commented on it on Amazon.
I also suggest reading the Lehmann volumes, Theory of Point Estimation and Testing Statistical Hypotheses, which do not compromise on mathematical rigor although Erich Lehmann was a statistician.
Professor Dudley of MIT has a wonderful set of notes on measure-theoretic statistics, which I personally refer to very often. If you would like to see more, then Dennis Cox of Rice University has a set of notes entitled The Theory of Statistics and Its Applications.
Finally, let me say that it is important to read landmark papers that have introduced some of the major concepts that we see in the theory of statistics today. Having said this, I highly recommend Application of the Radon-Nikodym Theorem to the Theory of Sufficient Statistics by Paul Halmos and Leonard Savage.
edited Jan 3 at 0:01
ttt
3931316
answered Feb 26 '13 at 19:09
Haskell CurryHaskell Curry
15.1k3886
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sounds great. Thanks, i'll check it out. I wonder why so few expositional works have been written on measure theoretic statistics, in particular in view of the plethora of textbooks, at all levels, that deal in measure theoretic probability.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Feb 26 '13 at 19:41
$begingroup$
You know, I asked myself the same question two years ago while I was preparing for my qualifying exam on Probability and Statistics. I was quite frustrated with all the proofs that I had seen of the Fisher-Neyman Factorization Theorem and the Neyman-Pearson Lemma, because these proofs always made simplifying assumptions in order to avoid measure theory.
$endgroup$
– Haskell Curry
Feb 26 '13 at 19:48
$begingroup$
Dear Haskell, i've read the article you recommended (Halmos & Savage). It's beautiful and illuminating. But there's one sentence that i don't get and would appreciate your perspective. In the end of section 8, after the example that shows that pairwise sufficiency doesn't imply sufficiency, the authors write: "If, for instance, we imagine that it is important to a statistician that he either estimate $alpha$ sharply or refrain from estimating it altogether, then he is by no means as well off with the observation of $y$ as with that of $x$".
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Mar 1 '13 at 19:10
$begingroup$
It seems to me that $alpha$ can be estimated as sharply as desired by observing $y$ alone: Simply divide $Y$ into as many equally spaced segments and note $y$'s frequency. About $1/2$ of $y$'s occurrences will be in the segment that contains $alpha$ whereas the other segments will be visited with equal probability that is close to $0$.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Mar 1 '13 at 19:11
$begingroup$
Dear Haskell, the link you provided to Cox's course notes points to notes on probability theory rather than statistical theory. Could you please correct it? I'd really like to take a look at Prof. Cox notes.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Apr 21 '13 at 18:32
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f315075%2fbook-on-measure-theoretic-statistics%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I have just the right book for you. Try Theory of Statistics by Michael J. Schervish. It is the only book on measure-theoretic statistics that has received $ 5 $ stars from every person who commented on it on Amazon.
I also suggest reading the Lehmann volumes, Theory of Point Estimation and Testing Statistical Hypotheses, which do not compromise on mathematical rigor although Erich Lehmann was a statistician.
Professor Dudley of MIT has a wonderful set of notes on measure-theoretic statistics, which I personally refer to very often. If you would like to see more, then Dennis Cox of Rice University has a set of notes entitled The Theory of Statistics and Its Applications.
Finally, let me say that it is important to read landmark papers that have introduced some of the major concepts that we see in the theory of statistics today. Having said this, I highly recommend Application of the Radon-Nikodym Theorem to the Theory of Sufficient Statistics by Paul Halmos and Leonard Savage.
edited Jan 3 at 0:01
ttt
3931316
answered Feb 26 '13 at 19:09
Haskell CurryHaskell Curry
15.1k3886
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sounds great. Thanks, i'll check it out. I wonder why so few expositional works have been written on measure theoretic statistics, in particular in view of the plethora of textbooks, at all levels, that deal in measure theoretic probability.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Feb 26 '13 at 19:41
$begingroup$
You know, I asked myself the same question two years ago while I was preparing for my qualifying exam on Probability and Statistics. I was quite frustrated with all the proofs that I had seen of the Fisher-Neyman Factorization Theorem and the Neyman-Pearson Lemma, because these proofs always made simplifying assumptions in order to avoid measure theory.
$endgroup$
– Haskell Curry
Feb 26 '13 at 19:48
$begingroup$
Dear Haskell, i've read the article you recommended (Halmos & Savage). It's beautiful and illuminating. But there's one sentence that i don't get and would appreciate your perspective. In the end of section 8, after the example that shows that pairwise sufficiency doesn't imply sufficiency, the authors write: "If, for instance, we imagine that it is important to a statistician that he either estimate $alpha$ sharply or refrain from estimating it altogether, then he is by no means as well off with the observation of $y$ as with that of $x$".
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Mar 1 '13 at 19:10
$begingroup$
It seems to me that $alpha$ can be estimated as sharply as desired by observing $y$ alone: Simply divide $Y$ into as many equally spaced segments and note $y$'s frequency. About $1/2$ of $y$'s occurrences will be in the segment that contains $alpha$ whereas the other segments will be visited with equal probability that is close to $0$.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Mar 1 '13 at 19:11
$begingroup$
Dear Haskell, the link you provided to Cox's course notes points to notes on probability theory rather than statistical theory. Could you please correct it? I'd really like to take a look at Prof. Cox notes.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Apr 21 '13 at 18:32
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I have just the right book for you. Try Theory of Statistics by Michael J. Schervish. It is the only book on measure-theoretic statistics that has received $ 5 $ stars from every person who commented on it on Amazon.
I also suggest reading the Lehmann volumes, Theory of Point Estimation and Testing Statistical Hypotheses, which do not compromise on mathematical rigor although Erich Lehmann was a statistician.
Professor Dudley of MIT has a wonderful set of notes on measure-theoretic statistics, which I personally refer to very often. If you would like to see more, then Dennis Cox of Rice University has a set of notes entitled The Theory of Statistics and Its Applications.
Finally, let me say that it is important to read landmark papers that have introduced some of the major concepts that we see in the theory of statistics today. Having said this, I highly recommend Application of the Radon-Nikodym Theorem to the Theory of Sufficient Statistics by Paul Halmos and Leonard Savage.
edited Jan 3 at 0:01
ttt
3931316
answered Feb 26 '13 at 19:09
Haskell CurryHaskell Curry
15.1k3886
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sounds great. Thanks, i'll check it out. I wonder why so few expositional works have been written on measure theoretic statistics, in particular in view of the plethora of textbooks, at all levels, that deal in measure theoretic probability.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Feb 26 '13 at 19:41
$begingroup$
You know, I asked myself the same question two years ago while I was preparing for my qualifying exam on Probability and Statistics. I was quite frustrated with all the proofs that I had seen of the Fisher-Neyman Factorization Theorem and the Neyman-Pearson Lemma, because these proofs always made simplifying assumptions in order to avoid measure theory.
$endgroup$
– Haskell Curry
Feb 26 '13 at 19:48
$begingroup$
Dear Haskell, i've read the article you recommended (Halmos & Savage). It's beautiful and illuminating. But there's one sentence that i don't get and would appreciate your perspective. In the end of section 8, after the example that shows that pairwise sufficiency doesn't imply sufficiency, the authors write: "If, for instance, we imagine that it is important to a statistician that he either estimate $alpha$ sharply or refrain from estimating it altogether, then he is by no means as well off with the observation of $y$ as with that of $x$".
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Mar 1 '13 at 19:10
$begingroup$
It seems to me that $alpha$ can be estimated as sharply as desired by observing $y$ alone: Simply divide $Y$ into as many equally spaced segments and note $y$'s frequency. About $1/2$ of $y$'s occurrences will be in the segment that contains $alpha$ whereas the other segments will be visited with equal probability that is close to $0$.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Mar 1 '13 at 19:11
$begingroup$
Dear Haskell, the link you provided to Cox's course notes points to notes on probability theory rather than statistical theory. Could you please correct it? I'd really like to take a look at Prof. Cox notes.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Apr 21 '13 at 18:32
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I have just the right book for you. Try Theory of Statistics by Michael J. Schervish. It is the only book on measure-theoretic statistics that has received $ 5 $ stars from every person who commented on it on Amazon.
I also suggest reading the Lehmann volumes, Theory of Point Estimation and Testing Statistical Hypotheses, which do not compromise on mathematical rigor although Erich Lehmann was a statistician.
Professor Dudley of MIT has a wonderful set of notes on measure-theoretic statistics, which I personally refer to very often. If you would like to see more, then Dennis Cox of Rice University has a set of notes entitled The Theory of Statistics and Its Applications.
Finally, let me say that it is important to read landmark papers that have introduced some of the major concepts that we see in the theory of statistics today. Having said this, I highly recommend Application of the Radon-Nikodym Theorem to the Theory of Sufficient Statistics by Paul Halmos and Leonard Savage.
edited Jan 3 at 0:01
ttt
3931316
answered Feb 26 '13 at 19:09
Haskell CurryHaskell Curry
15.1k3886
$endgroup$
I have just the right book for you. Try Theory of Statistics by Michael J. Schervish. It is the only book on measure-theoretic statistics that has received $ 5 $ stars from every person who commented on it on Amazon.
I also suggest reading the Lehmann volumes, Theory of Point Estimation and Testing Statistical Hypotheses, which do not compromise on mathematical rigor although Erich Lehmann was a statistician.
Professor Dudley of MIT has a wonderful set of notes on measure-theoretic statistics, which I personally refer to very often. If you would like to see more, then Dennis Cox of Rice University has a set of notes entitled The Theory of Statistics and Its Applications.
Finally, let me say that it is important to read landmark papers that have introduced some of the major concepts that we see in the theory of statistics today. Having said this, I highly recommend Application of the Radon-Nikodym Theorem to the Theory of Sufficient Statistics by Paul Halmos and Leonard Savage.
edited Jan 3 at 0:01
ttt
3931316
answered Feb 26 '13 at 19:09
Haskell CurryHaskell Curry
15.1k3886
edited Jan 3 at 0:01
ttt
3931316
edited Jan 3 at 0:01
ttt
3931316
edited Jan 3 at 0:01
ttt
3931316
3931316
answered Feb 26 '13 at 19:09
Haskell CurryHaskell Curry
15.1k3886
answered Feb 26 '13 at 19:09
Haskell CurryHaskell Curry
15.1k3886
answered Feb 26 '13 at 19:09
Haskell CurryHaskell Curry
15.1k3886
15.1k3886
$begingroup$
Sounds great. Thanks, i'll check it out. I wonder why so few expositional works have been written on measure theoretic statistics, in particular in view of the plethora of textbooks, at all levels, that deal in measure theoretic probability.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Feb 26 '13 at 19:41
$begingroup$
You know, I asked myself the same question two years ago while I was preparing for my qualifying exam on Probability and Statistics. I was quite frustrated with all the proofs that I had seen of the Fisher-Neyman Factorization Theorem and the Neyman-Pearson Lemma, because these proofs always made simplifying assumptions in order to avoid measure theory.
$endgroup$
– Haskell Curry
Feb 26 '13 at 19:48
$begingroup$
Dear Haskell, i've read the article you recommended (Halmos & Savage). It's beautiful and illuminating. But there's one sentence that i don't get and would appreciate your perspective. In the end of section 8, after the example that shows that pairwise sufficiency doesn't imply sufficiency, the authors write: "If, for instance, we imagine that it is important to a statistician that he either estimate $alpha$ sharply or refrain from estimating it altogether, then he is by no means as well off with the observation of $y$ as with that of $x$".
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Mar 1 '13 at 19:10
$begingroup$
It seems to me that $alpha$ can be estimated as sharply as desired by observing $y$ alone: Simply divide $Y$ into as many equally spaced segments and note $y$'s frequency. About $1/2$ of $y$'s occurrences will be in the segment that contains $alpha$ whereas the other segments will be visited with equal probability that is close to $0$.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Mar 1 '13 at 19:11
$begingroup$
Dear Haskell, the link you provided to Cox's course notes points to notes on probability theory rather than statistical theory. Could you please correct it? I'd really like to take a look at Prof. Cox notes.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Apr 21 '13 at 18:32
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Sounds great. Thanks, i'll check it out. I wonder why so few expositional works have been written on measure theoretic statistics, in particular in view of the plethora of textbooks, at all levels, that deal in measure theoretic probability.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Feb 26 '13 at 19:41
$begingroup$
You know, I asked myself the same question two years ago while I was preparing for my qualifying exam on Probability and Statistics. I was quite frustrated with all the proofs that I had seen of the Fisher-Neyman Factorization Theorem and the Neyman-Pearson Lemma, because these proofs always made simplifying assumptions in order to avoid measure theory.
$endgroup$
– Haskell Curry
Feb 26 '13 at 19:48
$begingroup$
Dear Haskell, i've read the article you recommended (Halmos & Savage). It's beautiful and illuminating. But there's one sentence that i don't get and would appreciate your perspective. In the end of section 8, after the example that shows that pairwise sufficiency doesn't imply sufficiency, the authors write: "If, for instance, we imagine that it is important to a statistician that he either estimate $alpha$ sharply or refrain from estimating it altogether, then he is by no means as well off with the observation of $y$ as with that of $x$".
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Mar 1 '13 at 19:10
$begingroup$
It seems to me that $alpha$ can be estimated as sharply as desired by observing $y$ alone: Simply divide $Y$ into as many equally spaced segments and note $y$'s frequency. About $1/2$ of $y$'s occurrences will be in the segment that contains $alpha$ whereas the other segments will be visited with equal probability that is close to $0$.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Mar 1 '13 at 19:11
$begingroup$
Dear Haskell, the link you provided to Cox's course notes points to notes on probability theory rather than statistical theory. Could you please correct it? I'd really like to take a look at Prof. Cox notes.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Apr 21 '13 at 18:32
$begingroup$
Sounds great. Thanks, i'll check it out. I wonder why so few expositional works have been written on measure theoretic statistics, in particular in view of the plethora of textbooks, at all levels, that deal in measure theoretic probability.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Feb 26 '13 at 19:41
$begingroup$
Sounds great. Thanks, i'll check it out. I wonder why so few expositional works have been written on measure theoretic statistics, in particular in view of the plethora of textbooks, at all levels, that deal in measure theoretic probability.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Feb 26 '13 at 19:41
$begingroup$
You know, I asked myself the same question two years ago while I was preparing for my qualifying exam on Probability and Statistics. I was quite frustrated with all the proofs that I had seen of the Fisher-Neyman Factorization Theorem and the Neyman-Pearson Lemma, because these proofs always made simplifying assumptions in order to avoid measure theory.
$endgroup$
– Haskell Curry
Feb 26 '13 at 19:48
$begingroup$
You know, I asked myself the same question two years ago while I was preparing for my qualifying exam on Probability and Statistics. I was quite frustrated with all the proofs that I had seen of the Fisher-Neyman Factorization Theorem and the Neyman-Pearson Lemma, because these proofs always made simplifying assumptions in order to avoid measure theory.
$endgroup$
– Haskell Curry
Feb 26 '13 at 19:48
$begingroup$
Dear Haskell, i've read the article you recommended (Halmos & Savage). It's beautiful and illuminating. But there's one sentence that i don't get and would appreciate your perspective. In the end of section 8, after the example that shows that pairwise sufficiency doesn't imply sufficiency, the authors write: "If, for instance, we imagine that it is important to a statistician that he either estimate $alpha$ sharply or refrain from estimating it altogether, then he is by no means as well off with the observation of $y$ as with that of $x$".
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Mar 1 '13 at 19:10
$begingroup$
Dear Haskell, i've read the article you recommended (Halmos & Savage). It's beautiful and illuminating. But there's one sentence that i don't get and would appreciate your perspective. In the end of section 8, after the example that shows that pairwise sufficiency doesn't imply sufficiency, the authors write: "If, for instance, we imagine that it is important to a statistician that he either estimate $alpha$ sharply or refrain from estimating it altogether, then he is by no means as well off with the observation of $y$ as with that of $x$".
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Mar 1 '13 at 19:10
$begingroup$
It seems to me that $alpha$ can be estimated as sharply as desired by observing $y$ alone: Simply divide $Y$ into as many equally spaced segments and note $y$'s frequency. About $1/2$ of $y$'s occurrences will be in the segment that contains $alpha$ whereas the other segments will be visited with equal probability that is close to $0$.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Mar 1 '13 at 19:11
$begingroup$
It seems to me that $alpha$ can be estimated as sharply as desired by observing $y$ alone: Simply divide $Y$ into as many equally spaced segments and note $y$'s frequency. About $1/2$ of $y$'s occurrences will be in the segment that contains $alpha$ whereas the other segments will be visited with equal probability that is close to $0$.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Mar 1 '13 at 19:11
$begingroup$
Dear Haskell, the link you provided to Cox's course notes points to notes on probability theory rather than statistical theory. Could you please correct it? I'd really like to take a look at Prof. Cox notes.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Apr 21 '13 at 18:32
$begingroup$
Dear Haskell, the link you provided to Cox's course notes points to notes on probability theory rather than statistical theory. Could you please correct it? I'd really like to take a look at Prof. Cox notes.
$endgroup$
– Evan Aad
Apr 21 '13 at 18:32
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f315075%2fbook-on-measure-theoretic-statistics%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
The closest thing I know is "Testing Statistical Hypotheses" by Lehman and Romano.
$endgroup$
– Michael Greinecker♦
Feb 26 '13 at 18:36