That's all stem cells.

So what scientists do is they have a hypothesis that they think might be likely to start with.

And so, at that time,

The first step is customer discovery.

It was hot. It wasn't hot enough.

We checked with the experiments, validated the prediction.

the mosquito man. But he ran an experiment in people, right?

We, will assume there's no correlation between x and y.

You're job is to get out of the building and talk to the payers.

At this point, we have systematically fixed the first bug using the scientific method to systematically come up with a hypothesis and refine it, refine it again, possibly come up with alternatives until we end up with a diagnosis.

So the null hypothesis is that the slope relating X to Y is zero.

For bugs, we do not.

What is it we have seen? We have started with an initial hypothesis.

Conversely, if the null hypothesis falls outside, you don't believe null hypothesis and you accept the alternate hypothesis.

like playground supervisors.

Of course if you retain and the null is in fact true, then great you made the correct decision.

Is it because it's more fun?

If the observation, however, is not in line with your prediction, then the hypothesis is rejected, and if the hypothesis is rejected, you need to come up with a new hypothesis, and this cycle going along from hypothesis through prediction through experiment through observation and gradually refining the hypothesis or coming up with alternatives.

So the physics is that you cannot prove a hypothesis, but it's easy to disprove it any hypothesis is shaky.

And our null hypothesis is equals p 0.9 and our alternate hypothesis, if it doesn't work, as well as the null hypothesis, so p is smaller than 0.9.

I need to compare the numbers, confirm my suspicions.

Now, for the answers. A theory is the outcome of the scientific method.

And as long as we've looked for explanations, we've wound up with something that gets closer and closer to science, which is hypotheses as to why we get sick, and as long as we've had hypotheses about why we get sick, we've tried to treat it as well.

It's a hypothesis,

Here's our optional unit. It involves programming and what I want is really simple.

Walter has a theory.

The null hypothesis is the basic hypothesis that something is correct and unless proven wrong, we always believe null hypothesis is actually correct, we trust the manufacturer or do we have sufficient evidence to be very high likelihood the null hypothesis is wrong, the alternate hypothesis is correct then, we reject the null hypothesis and we tell the manufacturer, please print the label on the box because the number there isn't quite correct.

That is, the diagnosis was valid from the beginning on, and therefore, was a correct explanation of how the failure came to be.

What are the benefits the customer expects, desires or surprise about.

Maybe we are in tag mode, maybe the variable tag is set.

The evidence makes them change that hypothesis.

They thought that their customer segments was going to be professional sports game attendees.

This is a guy named Carlos Finlay.

That is at the vertical access value 0.5.

See if you can come up with a pattern for what it is that it's doing, and then convince yourself why.

The result confirmed my hypothesis.

That's a lot of whatifs.

And Feynman also understood this.

And so here

Our case line says, we can generalized it towards other objects and to come up with a more general hypothesis.

Does every French utterance have an equivalent Japanese utterance?

Because it is a little bit of a game.

We put all these together, and we have a great series of hypotheses.

I In theory, yes.

Note that there are many ways to come up with an initial hypothesis.