Afriifa:
its a significance of regression coefficients. if u check d question again, u would know its all about errors before judgement(hypothesis). if the null hypotheses should be rejected or accepted,. now u check d probability of of having a type 1 error or two error with either decisions u make. u state they hypotheses then set the decision criteria . these r works of pearson n d likes of fisher. hope u get d basic?

Chukwudi4naija:
What you're blabbing is not related to the question above. Q.1 only ask one to proof that the coefficient of an estimator is unbiased. Q2 requires one to proof that Gaussian estimator has the least minimum variance among other unbiased estimators. Q2 is an extension of Q1 when solving mathemacally. The process can take up to 30 minutes if one is fast enough. So, it is not about hypothesis and interpretation of regression result.

Afriifa:
what you don't know. u say I don't know. copy? don't be an ignorant.

Afriifa:
more like a death sentence

bedspread:
JUST ANSWER= JESUS IS LORD and Submit

benebaby77:



They have interpretation in econometrics.

When the errors amount to zero, it's homoskedacity.

But if errors don't amount to zero, it's heteroskedacity.

The questions are just elementary in econometrics...

betterABIAstate:
is economics a language?

GrandMufti:
Op it's simple

Chukwudi4naija:
In Q1. You're asked to show that the parameter estimate is a linear function of the dependent variable (Y), which is simple but proofing that parameter estimate or Gaussian estimator is unbiased and definitely not as simple as what you extracted from that text. You just slowed that the sum of the error term is zero which answers Q2, but there is an extension by proofing the minimum variance of Gaussian estimator. U 2 much.

Chukwudi4naija:
What you're blabbing is not related to the question above. Q.1 only asks one to proof that the coefficient of an estimator is unbiased. Q2 requires one to proof that Gaussian estimator has the least minimum variance among other unbiased estimators. Q2 is an extension of Q1 when solving mathemacally. The process can take up to 30 minutes if one is fast enough. So, it is not about hypothesis and interpretation of regression result.

betterABIAstate:
"Amounted to zero or did not amounted to zero" what kind of English is that? It should be "amounted to zero or did not AMOUNT to zero"

So much from unilag, its like saying "arrived at zero or did not ARRIVED at zero" the correct statement should be "arrived at zero or did not ARRIVE at zero" or saying "he did not came to zero"

Up unilag

betterABIAstate:
is economics a language?

betterABIAstate:
"Amounted to zero or did not amounted to zero" what kind of English is that? It should be "amounted to zero or did not AMOUNT to zero"

So much from unilag, its like saying "arrived at zero or did not ARRIVED at zero" the correct statement should be "arrived at zero or did not ARRIVE at zero" or saying "he did not came to zero"

Up unilag

kjsun15:
Just prove that sum of errors equal estimated mean I.e. prove how to justify ols unbiased estimates thru BLUE. Very simple bro.

betterABIAstate:
"Amounted to zero or did not amounted to zero" what kind of English is that? It should be "amounted to zero or did not AMOUNT to zero"

So much from unilag, its like saying "arrived at zero or did not ARRIVED at zero" the correct statement should be "arrived at zero or did not ARRIVE at zero" or saying "he did not came to zero"

Up unilag

betterABIAstate:
"Amounted to zero or did not amounted to zero" what kind of English is that? It should be "amounted to zero or did not AMOUNT to zero"

So much from unilag, its like saying "arrived at zero or did not ARRIVED at zero" the correct statement should be "arrived at zero or did not ARRIVE at zero" or saying "he did not came to zero"

Dumb lecturer also wrote ''criterions''. I know they will accuse typo. Up Moshood Abiola Uni... sorry Unilag
Up unilag

personal59:
chairman maybe u did not read well, all I see is a logical question nd am very sure the answer is in your note so leave social media and use ur time well on reading.




when I was in 100l my biology lecturer set a question using flowers anther and filament with butterfly as a compulsory question I almost left it unanswered before I reason d man was asking question on mito
sis and meiosis

so oga read well

betterABIAstate:
"Amounted to zero or did not amounted to zero" what kind of English is that? It should be "amounted to zero or did not AMOUNT to zero"

So much from unilag, its like saying "arrived at zero or did not ARRIVED at zero" the correct statement should be "arrived at zero or did not ARRIVE at zero" or saying "he did not came to zero"

Up unilag

walexy100:

You don't know what you are defending. Instead of you to correct your so-called Prof.

betterABIAstate:
"Amounted to zero or did not amounted to zero" what kind of English is that? It should be "amounted to zero or did not AMOUNT to zero"

So much from unilag, its like saying "arrived at zero or did not ARRIVED at zero" the correct statement should be "arrived at zero or did not ARRIVE at zero" or saying "he did not came to zero"

Up unilag