Message from fashist in Vibrant Diversity #general
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
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.
Spoiler alert, they aren't unless you time shift the pay by like 2 years IIRC.
@Koba I really don't know why its formatted "Prob > F", I think it might refer to a critical value of some sort.
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?
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
It's been 10 years
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
Time to add more lag operators until this shit works