I Lira 2009 Metrologia 46 616 doi:10.1088/0026-1394/46/6/002
I Lira
Show affiliationsIt has been argued that the probability associated with a coverage interval calculated following the procedure proposed in Supplement 1 to the GUM should be about equal to the proportion of independent intervals reckoned over time that contain the measurand (Willink 2006 Metrologia 43 L39–42, Hall 2008 Metrologia 45 L5–8, Possolo et al 2009 Metrologia 46 L1–7). The opposite point of view maintains that a coverage probability can only be interpreted as the degree of belief in the quoted interval containing the unknown value of the measurand (Lira 2008 Metrologia 45 L21–3). In this paper, two simple examples are presented to reinforce the latter interpretation.
Issue 6 (December 2009)
Received 20 July 2009, in final form 14 September 2009
Published 7 October 2009
I Lira 2009 Metrologia 46 616
Martin Sieber 2002 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 35 L613
Jonathan T. Barron et al. 2008 The Astronomical Journal 135 414
Iwan Jensen 2005 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38 L769
Jun Yang et al 2003 J. Micromech. Microeng. 13 963
D. John Hillier et al. 2001 ApJ 553 837
David Syphers et al. 2009 ApJS 185 20
B. T. Soifer et al. 1999 ApJ 513 207
P J Cumpson and M P Seah 1995 Metrologia 31 375
Y Du et al 2001 Phys. Med. Biol. 46 167