Background: Statistics. Something about the Welch–Satterthwaite equation is so counterintuitive that I must have a mental block, but the equation comes up often in my work, and it drives me batty. For example, the degrees of freedom decrease as the sample size increases beyond a certain point. All the online documentation I can find for it gives the same information as Wikipedia, in which k = 1/n. I looked up the original derivation and, in it, the k are scaling factors of a linear combination of random variables. So at some point in the literature after the original derivation, it was decided that k = 1/n was superior in some regard; I lack the commitment needed to search the literature to find out why.
The stupid questions:
1) Does anyone know why the statistics field settled on k = 1/n?
2) Can someone give a relatively concrete mental image or other intuitive suggestion as to why the W-S equation really ought to behave in the odd ways it does?
Does anyone know why the statistics field settled on k = 1/n?
I am guessing that this is the default assumption of equal weighting or equal scaling of the variances that you are pooling. If you want to assign non-equal weights you should have some specific reason to do so.
I don't think it's "superior", it's just the simplest default in the absence of any additional information.
This thread is for asking any questions that might seem obvious, tangential, silly or what-have-you. Don't be shy, everyone has holes in their knowledge, though the fewer and the smaller we can make them, the better.
Please be respectful of other people's admitting ignorance and don't mock them for it, as they're doing a noble thing.
To any future monthly posters of SQ threads, please remember to add the "stupid_questions" tag.