So none of those outputs mean anything to you?

Lol not at the moment

Sorry, but I'll ask a couple of friends and see if they can help

ok the simplest way you can ask them is this: "Do these results indicate that I can reject H0?"

You know what, I think the decision rule is Reject H0 if "Prob > F" is greater than "F(#, #)"

Which appears to be true

@Nikephoros

@Koba Tell him this is the output to a Granger Causality Test

I did

He's a bit of an autiste so he takes a while to get his thoughts out

I see. I'm fairly certain that I can reject H0. Even if I don't know how to explain it using the data, the underlying question is: Is "egg" the cause of "Chicken"

The answer is, presumably, yes.

@Nikephoros I wish I could offer help. I used STATA for econometrics as well, but that was nearly 10 years ago.

I did my econometrics project on whether baseball player salaries are representative of objective output.

@Nikephoros

Spoiler alert, they aren't unless you time shift the pay by like 2 years IIRC.

@Nikephoros is the > an operator or just an output format?

@Koba I really don't know why its formatted "Prob > F", I think it might refer to a critical value of some sort.

Maybe not

Because I read that as "probability of f = .8903"

"Prob of chi2 = .8877"

There is nothing special about granger causality versus other hypothesis tests in stata.

So what should I interpret these outputs to mean?

Reject H0, right?

@Nikephoros

So, I read your results as failure to reject

Ah so I was reading it backwards

Yes, I agree with that. I think you have to accept H0 with those numbers because it doesn't meet the confidence interval.

FAILYRE TI REJECT

!!!

As the autiste said, .02 < .95

Not accept!

Roight

Oh yea

It's been 10 years

Kek

I was interpreting it like a p-value

Which was my big mistake

Easy though. You got the hard work right

Just had to remember how to read