Gosset,Fisher,and thet Distribution
JOAN FISHER BOX*
Letters fromW.S. Gosset to R.A. Fisher are used to
describe Gosset's firstcontactsand growingfriendship
withFisher, theircollaborationover the tabulationof
Student's t, and the wider applications of Gosset's
work that were made possible by Fisher's extension
and generalizationofthedistribution theoryintheearly
1920's. These lettersrevealGosset's practicalapproach
to the statisticalproblemsof his brewerywork that
''naturallyrequired" the solutionsforwhichthe name
of Student is famous; and they exhibithis appealing
character,modest yet self-reliant, in relationshipnot
only to Karl Pearson and R.A. Fisher but to statistical
assistants stillin training.
KEY WORDS: Geometric representation;Sampling
distributions;t distribution;Randomization;Analysis
of variance; Degrees of freedom.
1. INTRODUCTION
W.S. Gosset, betterknown under the pseudonym
Student,was an extraordinarily appealing individual,
generousto a fault,humble,enthusiasticin thepursuit
of his varied interests,and helpful.He had a flairfor
graspingtheheartof a problemthatmade his contribu-
tionsto statisticsimportantout ofall proportionto their
number.It is a tributeto his personal qualities thathe
was a friendofbothKarl Pearson and R.A. Fisherfrom
the timehe made theiracquaintance in the earlyyears
of the centuryuntilhis death in 1937. It is a pleasure
to reviewthegrowthofhisfriendship and collaboration
withFisher in the early 1920s; and, because the story
comes alive in thelettersfromGosset thatFishersaved
and latersummarized(Gosset 1970)-about 80 ofthem
in the period of eight years here considered-to
allow Gosset's own words to reveal his personality
and his approach to his statisticalresearch and col-
leagues. (For a more technicaltreatmentof the same
period, see ChurchillEisenhart's (1979) article, "On
the Transitionfrom'Student's' z to 'Student's' t.")
From 1899on, Gosset was employedas a brewerat
Guinness's Brewery, and his statistical researches
sprangfromthe needs of thiswork. In particular,dur-
ing a year he spent in Karl Pearson's departmentat
UniversityCollege, London, in 1907,Gosset prepared
two papers (Student1908a,b),"The ProbableErrorofa
* JoanFisherBox, 3437
EdgehillPkwy.,Madison, WI 53705,is the
authorof R.A. Fisher, The Life of a Sctientist(1978) and of articles
on relatedtopics.
?UThe AmericanStatistician,May 1981, Vol. 35, No. 2
This content downloaded from 66.195.118.21 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:23:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mean" and "Probable Error of a CorrelationCoef-
ficient.'"
In the summerof 1912Gosset was 36; Fisher,gradu-
ating from Cambridge University,was 22. Fisher's
firstpaper, in whichthemethodofmaximumlikelihood
was introduced,had appeared in April. Deriving the
maximumlikelihoodestimateforthevarianceofa nor-
mal sample, Fisher had come up withthe divisorn in-
stead of the n - 1 of Student's formula.His college
tutortoldhimto writeto Gosset about thediscrepancy,
which he did. Several letterspassed between them,
in the course of which Fisher conceived the notionof
representinggeometricallythe configurationof the
sample in n-dimensionalspace. This representation
immediatelygave him the concept of degrees of free-
dom and the correct divisor n - 1 for the variance
formula,and moreoveryieldedthemathematicalproof
of Student'sdistribution,whichFisher sentto Gosset.
Gosset (Pearson 1968) immediatelysent the proof to
Pearson, suggestingpublication. "I couldn't under-
standhis stuff,"Gosset wrote."I don't feelat home in
morethanthreedimensionseven ifI could understand
it otherwise." He concluded, however, "It's so nice
and mathematicalthatit mightappeal to some people"
(p. 446).
The proof was not published, the correspondence
ceased; but a seed had been sown that would grow.
As Fisher wrote in Statistical Methodsfor Research
Workers(1925, p. 23), "The study of the exact dis-
tributionsof statisticscommences in 1908 with 'Stu-
dent's' paper The Probable Errorof a Mean. Once the
truenatureof the problemwas indicated,a largenum-
ber of samplingproblemswere withinreach of mathe-
matical solution." Having grasped the true nature of
the problem fromStudent's work, and the means of
mathematicalsolutionthroughthe geometricalrepre-
sentation,Fisher proceeded nextto solve the problem
of Student's second paper by deriving the general
sampling distributionof the correlation coefficient.
When Gosset received the publishedpaper in 1915,he
wrote, " When I firstsaw it, I nearly wrote to thank
you forthe kindway in whichyou referredto my un-
scientificefforts";he suggestedhow he would tackle
the remainingproblemof estimatingthe errorof cor-
relationestimates, adding, however, "But of course
anythingalmost would do if it gave an integrableex-
pression" (Gosset 1970; no. 1). This was the nub. In
principle,the problemcould be solved by calculating
the curves, and hence their integrals,for each case
separately,and thiswas infactundertakenin Pearson's
department(Soper et al. 1917). Fisher showed, how-
ever, thata verysimpleand close approximationcould
be obtained by a transformation, which renderedthe
massive tabulationof ordinatesalmost superfluous.
61
 2. FELLOW PRACTITIONERS
Three years later, in December 1918, Fisher wrote
again to discuss applicationof Gosset's (Student 1914)
difference correlationmethodto birthrate and marriage
data. Gosset answered at great length,ending,
Well, I expect you've about had enoughofthis.I am send-
ing it via UniversityCollege as I cannot lay hands on our
formercorrespondenceand theonlyclue to yourwhereabouts
is the postmarkwhich seems to be Reading. If I oughtto ad-
dress you as Major or Professorpray forgiveme, here one
failsto keep abreast of events. (Gosset 1970, no. 2)
Gosset mightnothave knownhow to address Fisher,or
where,buthe could recognizethatherewas a manwith
a similarscientificoutlook and similarpracticalgoals,
thougha mathematician.In 1915Gosset had explained
thathe had become interestedin the correlationcoef-
ficient(like the standarderrorof the mean) because he
needed the solutionto the problemin his work.
It happened thatI was mixed up witha lot of large scale
experimentspartlyagriculturebut chieflyin an Experimental
Brewery. The agricultural(and indeed almost any) Experi-
mentsnaturallyrequireda solutionof themean/S.E. problem,
and the ExperimentalBrewerywhich concerns such things
as the connectionbetween analysis of malt or hops, and the
behaviourof the beer, and whichtakes a day to each unitof
the experiment,thus limitingnumbers,demanded an answer
to such questions as, "If witha small numberof cases I get a
value r, what is the probabilitythatthereis reallya positive
correlationof greatervalue than, say, .25?' (Gosset 1970,
no. 1)
Now Gosset explainedhow, beforehis year withPear-
son, he had evolved the differencecorrelationmethod
forsimilarlypracticalreasons; and why,thoughPear-
son had since withdrawnhis objections to the method
and indeedhad extendeditsapplications(see reviewby
Fisher 1916), Gosset still doubted its usefulness,ex-
cept in its originalapplication,which he described as
follows.
One of the points to be investigatedwas the connection
between the LaboratoryAnalysis of malts and the lengthof
time the resultingbeer remained potable, as measured by
acidity. (If you have ever drunk Guinness in England you
will understandwhy.) But one of the chieffactorsin acidity
productionis the temperature(both at brewingand during
storage) and at that time our arrangementsfor stabilising
temperatureat the ExperimentalBrewerywere ratherprimi-
tive. Hence I was forced to take firstdifferencesbetween
successive brewings . . . to eliminatethe largetemperature
effect.(Gosset 1970, no. 2)
Gosset did not know that Fisher also was involved in
biological work untilhe received a replyto his letter,
in which Fisher admittedhe was neitherMajor nor
Professor,but had been a schoolteacher throughout
the war and was now looking for a job. Fisher went
on to discuss some statisticalwork he was doing with
orcharddata fromWoburn.Gosset's interestwas im-
mediatelyaroused:
Your fruittree work must be interesting:as a gardenerI
am of course familiarwith alternate seasons of apples and
pears and (as a brewer) of hops. I don't know whetheryou
are lookingfora job in thatline but I hearthatRussell intends
62 (? The AmericanStatistician,May 1981, Vol. 35, No. 2
This content downloaded from 66.195.118.21 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:23:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
to get a statisticiansoon, when he gets the money I think,
and it mightbe worthwhile to keep yourears open to news
fromHarpenden. (Gosset 1970, no. 3)
Naturally,Gosset was the firstto hear eight months
laterthatSir JohnRussell had appointedFisher statis-
tician at RothamstedExperimentalStation, and was
glad, for,as he said, "There should be lots of interest-
ing workto be done there,and theymighteasily have
got someone there who would have been worse than
useless" (Gosset 1970,no. 4). He was happyto answer
Fisher's requestforadvice bothabout whatcomputing
machine to buy and about home brewing- "less
troubleto buy Guinness," he added, "and let us do it
foryou" (Gossett 1970, no. 4), which Fisher did.
Then, forthe last time,the correspondenceflagged
for nearly two years. Gosset's habitual complaintof
his laziness was merelyan excuse forpackingthe day
with an unusual variety of pursuits, not always so
"'perfectlyuseless"' as he claimed in a letter dated
20 May 1924:
My laziness takes the formof pursuingwithtremendous
energy some perfectlyuseless aim while totally neglecting
thingswhich oughtto be done at once. Instead of writingto
you I read "Eminent Victorians;- when I oughtto be filling
in numerous income tax forms (in order to recover much
needed cash overpaid to the British Government) I play
patience; when I ought to be tyingup loganberrieswhose
crop will otherwisebe wasted, I spend my time in an alto-
getherprematurethinningof pears. (Gosset 1970,no. 45)
In March 1922 Fisher sent Gosset some offprints,
includingthe controversialarticle "On the Interpreta-
tionofx2 FromContingencyTables,' in whichdegrees
offreedomwerefirstintroduced.The articlewas bound
to infuriatePearson. Yet in a covering letterFisher
seems to have suggested formationof a biometrical
society that only Pearson could at thattime have ini-
tiated,an extensionoftheinformalsocietyofbiometers
at UniversityCollege, to include "practitioners"using
smallsample statistics.Fisherknewhe was thelast man
Pearson was likelyto listento and hoped theidea might
be betterreceived if it came fromGosset, who was
Pearson's friendas well as the firstsuch practitioner.
Gosset replied
When I am nextover I willsee how theland lies at Univer-
sityCollege. Ofcourse ifthe'Biometers' are to be anyuse they
shouldincludetheleadingpractitioners, butI ratherfancythat
Pearson's idea is thatit is a sort of UniversityCollege Club.
Besides, as you say, he is perhaps a littleintolerantof criti-
cism, most of us tend to thatI fancyas we grow older.
In most of yourdifferenceswithPearson I am altogether
on your side and in some cases I have agreed to differfrom
him long ago. (Gosset 1970,no. 5)
Thus a curious three-wayrelationshipwas formed.
Pearson and Fisher did not communicatedirectly,but
on occasions did throughGosset, and Gosset saved his
communicationswithPearson forthe occasions when
he visitedhim in person.
By thistimeFisher's workon samplingdistributions
was producing new results in response to Gosset's
needs. On 3 April 1922 Gosset inquiredabout the dis-
tributionof an estimated regression coefficient,"'a
problemto whichhe presumablyreceived the solution
by return,"as Fishernoted later(Gosset 1970,no. 5).
On 12 AprilGosset asked about the distribution of the
partial regression/correlation
coefficients:"This also
was probablyquicklyansweredforon May 5thhe refers
to the solution" (Gosset 1970, no. 6). The letterof
5 May has several pointsof interest.First,its opening
shows Gosset's self-deprecation as a mathematician-
his feelingsabout Fisher's use of the word evidently
were to become a favoritejoke in his letters.He wrote:
Many thanksforyourletterand thePhil. Trans. paper. As
to the formerin whichyou say thatit is encouragingto have
your work understood, I fear that I can't conscientiously
claim to understandit,but I take itforgrantedthatyou know
what you are talkingabout and thankfully use the results!
It's not so muchthe mathematics,I can oftensay "Well,
of course, that's beyondme, but we'll take it as correct" but
when I come to 'Evidently' I know that means two hours
hard work at least beforeI can see why.
The same lettershows thatFisherwas usingStudent's
tables (enteredforthe rightnumberof degrees of free-
dom) to test the significanceof regressions("which,"
Gosset remarks,"is of course very satisfactoryfor
Student!"), of partial correlations and regressions,
and ofthedifference betweentwo means fromsamples
of differentsize-a novel notion to Gosset. Thus it
appears thatFisheralreadyhad a unifiedunderstanding
of the distributiontheoryinvolved, which had been
progressivelyilluminatedfor him throughgeometric
representation.Moreoverthe lettershows thatFisher
had suggestedthecalculationofnew tablesofStudent's
distribution and a new methodof calculation,forGos-
set writes,"I could probablyget theworkof tabulating
your integraldone easily enough, though whetherI
should be allowed to publishthe work of the man I'd
get to do it is anothermatter" (Gosset 1970, no. 7).
That year, for the firsttime, Gosset had a statistical
assistant; but he knew the brewery'srestrictivepolicy
on publicationsmightmake trouble.
3. THE TABULATION OF t
Two changes were made fromStudent's former7
table to make the new tabulationssuitable for all the
new applications.First,thenumberofobservationsfor
which the table was enteredwas changed to the num-
ber of degrees of freedom.Second, the now familiar
values of t = z(n - 1)1/2 were tabulated instead of:.
This correctionstandardizedthe gradingof the scale
that had previouslybecome progressivelycoarser for
largervalues ofn, and it incidentallymade thegrading
finerthroughoutthe table.
In calculatingthe tabulated values in 1907, Gosset
had used the device of integratingby partsin termsof
cos 6. The original tables did not extend beyond
n = 10; since the formulaincludes an extratermeach
time n is increased by two, the method becomes
cumbersome for largern. The tables had later been
extended and, in view of the difficulties,
it is not sur-
(? The AmericanStatistician,Ma' 1981, Vol. 35, No. 2
This content downloaded from 66.195.118.21 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:23:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
prisingthat when Gosset checked the two tables, he
declared them both "perfectlyrotten' (Gosset 1970,
no. 36).
Fisher proposed a new methodof attack. Using the
value of t instead of z, he saw that the probabilities
could be arrivedat by an expansion in inversepowers
of n. The expansion is asymptoticso that as n is in-
creased, the numberof nonnegligibletermsof the ex-
pansion is reduced, and as n tends to infinity,the
leading term in t2 alone remains. Thus, as Student's
cos 0 formulabecame morecomplicatedwithincreas-
ingn, Fisher's methodbecame moreand moresimple.
Before the calculations were begun, however, Gos-
set plannedto visitFisherin England.On 15September
1922 he motoredover with his sister and stayed the
nightin Harpenden. It was the firsttimehe and Fisher
had met,and the meetingconfirmedall theirfavorable
preconceptions.Althoughthetalkcenteredon thenew
tabulation and its multitudinoususes, Gosset could
not conceive thathis table could ever be so important
as Fisherclaimed. Afterthe visithe sent-Fishera copy
of Student's tables, "as you are the only man that's
ever likelyto use them!" (Gosset 1970, no. 11).
The tables had been in constantuse at the brewery
forthe past 14 years, but they were almost unknown
elsewhere.Gosset accepted theirneglectbythestatisti-
cal establishmentwith a good grace. In contrast,
Fisher's sense ofjustice was outraged.In a "Historical
Note" at the beginningof Statistical Methods for
Research Wotkers (14th ed., 1970, p. 23), we read:
"Student's" workwas not quicklyappreciated(it had, in
fact, been totallyignoredin the journal in which it had ap-
peared), and fromthe firsteditionit has been one of the chief
purposes of thisbook to make betterknownthe effectof his
researches,and ofmathematicalworkconsequentuponthem.
Duringthe visitwithFisher,Gosset suggestedsend-
ing his assistant, E. Somerfield,to Rothamstedfor
a fewmonthsto studywithFisher. The visitwas even-
tuallyarrangedto beginin December 1922.The method
of instruction,workingthroughfielddata, was neverin
doubt.Gosset approved: "What you suggestabout run-
ningSomerfieldover any figurescomingin fromyour
various departmentsis exactly what I want." But he
cautioned Fisher: "You will, I fear,findthatyou will
have to be even moreelementarywithSomerfieldthan
withme, but thatwill be rathergood for you as your
faultis thatyou considerus all to be mathematicians'
(Gosset 1970,no. 13). The visitproved highlysatisfac-
tory to all parties. Soon after Somerfield's return,
Gosset confessed that his assistant now understood
Fisher's writingsbetterthanhe did; moreover,Somer-
fieldwas permitted to publishtheworkdone at Rotham-
sted, although, Fisher's annoyance, it had to be
to
undera pseudonym,"Mathetes."
Meanwhile,Gosset began tabulations.In October he
wrote, "'I haven't had time to do anythingwith the
Type VII [Student's curve], apples at home and busi-
ness at the Brewery,but I hope to get on to it soon''
(Gosset 1970,no. 12). A monthlater,however(to quote
a fragmentonly), he wrote:
63
 Last nightI checked your values forx = 1 (discoveringa
slight slip) from your correction formulae and calculated
the same values to seven places. As I used the sum of at least
fournumbersof 7 places they also have an errorin the 7th
place due to approximations,but the correspondenceis quite
wonderfullyclose. (Gosset 1970, no. 13)
ImagineFisher at Rothamstedworkinghis motorMil-
lionaire,a large electricmachineon whichone turned
a crankto set thenumberand inserteda plungerto start
operation. He providedthe correctionformulasand a
table of values calculated fromhis expansion. Imagine
Gosset puttinghis hand-operatedBaby Triumphator
intohis rucksackand carryingit home to workon the
tables, calculating, checking, recalculating. Imagine
Somerfield, left without the Triumphator at the
brewery,and, as Gosset reported,
...borrowing fromall and sundry.Yesterday I foundhim
withthe machineNoah used when quantitysurveyingbefore
his voyage. The storygoes that he subsequentlybarteredit
for a barrel of porter with the originalGuinness. Anyhow
he doesn't seem to have been able to keep it dryand Somer-
fieldwasn't strongenough to turnthe handle. (Gosset 1970,
no. 13)
Apart from Fisher's calculations and assistance in
checking, Gosset was to recalculate the whole table
himself,under the restrictionthat the calculator was
in demand at the breweryforhalfthe year. At the end
of February1923he warnedFisher,"People are getting
querulousabout the machine,and I reallycannotspare
day-lightto workon [it] at the Brewery,so I fearthat
I shan't do much more tillnext winter"(Gosset 1970,
no. 19). It was mid-Octoberwhen Gosset announced,
"The calculating season having now commenced, I
took a calculatingmachinehome on Saturdayand be-
gan work last night" (Gosset 1970, no. 34).
4. ARGUING THINGS THROUGH
Even while he was makingthe calculations for his
new tables, Gosset was reconsideringFisher's paper
(1922) on the goodness of fitof regressionformulas,
in which it was shown thatthe significanceof regres-
sion formulas,linearor nonlinear,simpleor multiple,
may be treatedexactly by Student's test. Althoughin
May he had accepted Fisher's results, on rereading
the paper aftervisitingFisher, Gosset became uneasy
and wroteFishermorethanonce beforehe was satisfied
thatthe test was legitimate.He chose to workthrough
Fisher's problematically"obvious" argumentsand, if
necessary,to raise pointsand argue themthroughwith
Fisheruntilhe was sure he understoodand agreed with
the reasoning. In 1923, even before the principleof
randomizationwas in print,Gosset expressed skepti-
cism about therandomizationoffieldexperiments,and
on this subject Fisher never whollyconvinced him.
The subject arose during lengthycorrespondence
about the analysisof experimentsusingBeaven's half-
drillstriparrangement.Fisherhad evidentlyasked why
Gosset believed a systematicdesignto be intrinsically
64 ? The American Statistician,Max 1981, Vol. 35, No. 2
This content downloaded from 66.195.118.21 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:23:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
more accurate than a randomized one. In his reply
Gosset invoked practicalexperience,butgraduallyhis
reasoningbecame moreexplicit.On readingthe proofs
ofStatisticalMethodsforResearch Wor-ker-s in October
1924, Gosset protested: "I don't expect to convince
you butI don't agree withyourcontrolledrandomness.
You would want a large lunatic asylum foroperators
who are apt to make mistakesenougheven now" (Gos-
set 1970, no. 50). In April 1928. criticizinga block
design because the errorwas largerthan if the same
treatmentshad been laid out in a Latin square, Gosset
argued:
The fact is that thereale two principlesinvolved in the
Latin Square, of whichI attachthe greaterimportanceto the
balancing of the errorsand you to the randomisation.It is
myopinionthatin thegreatmajorityof cases, the randomisa-
tion is supplied to any properlybalanced experimentby the
soil itself.(Gosset 1970,no. 92)
Gosset understoodperfectlythe essential role of ran-
domizationand himselfpointedit out in criticizingthe
LanarkshireMilk Experiment(Student 1931), but this
did not alter his conviction. In 1936, in advocating,
beforethe Royal StatisticalSociety, Beaven's half-drill
stripmethodfor large-scale cooperative experiments
(Student 1936),he claimed that"since the tendencyof
deliberate randomisingis to increase the error, a
balanced arrangementlike the half-drillis best."
Fisher was angered by this, and a heated debate fol-
lowed. Fisherthenproduced "A Test of the Supposed
Precisionof SystematicArrangements"(Barbacki and
Fisher 1936),whichGosset answered in an articlepub-
lishedposthumously(Student 1938). Afterconsidering
the usually slighteffectsof departuresfromassump-
tionsof normalvariationand of equal variance,Gosset
continued:
If, however the samplingbe not random,thereare such
possibilitiesof drawingfalse conclusions that Prof. Fisher
has introduceda systemof artificialrandomizingto ensure
thatthe thirdconditionis satisfiedand brands all other sys-
tems invalid.
Nevertheless,it is possible, by balancingsources of error
which would otherwiselead to bias, to obtain arrangements
of greaterprecision which are neverthelesseffectivelyran-
dom, by which I mean thatthe departurefromrandomness
is only liable to affectour conclusions to the same sort of
extent as do departures from normalityor inequality of
variances. (p. 200)
The argumentof the rest of the article supported
this claim.
Gosset's obstinacyin debate was not withoutvalue
to science, forhe raised pointsthatneeded considera-
tion or elucidationand persevereduntilhe was satis-
fied. His difficultyin 1922 was one that has troubled
later statisticians,it is perhaps the firstinstance in
which Fisher's concept of the "relevant subset" be-
comes critical.In makingthe regressionof X'on x,-and
testingthe significanceof deviationsabout the regres-
sion line b, Fisher had proved thatthe distributionof
the ratio of a regressioncoefficienth to its estimated
standard error follows the tdistribution. It was not
obvious to Gosset thatthe resultingtestwas legitimate
because the samplingdistribution ofthex's themselves
was not taken into account. Fisher, however, argued
thatthe regressionwas not made on the whole popula-
tionof possiblex's, butonlyon the sample; forthetest
in question,the sample of values ofx actuallyobtained
formedwhat he was later to call the relevantsubset,
and forthemthe mean and the variance were fixedby
the data themselves.
5. PUBLICATION OF THE t TABLES AND
THEIR WIDER APPLICATIONS
FromthetimeFishergraspedtheunifieddistribution
theoryforthe generallinearmodel, events moved fast
towards new applications. His investigation,"The
Goodness of Fit ofRegressionFormulaeand theDistri-
bution of Regression Coefficients,"was published in
July 1922. In it he identifiedas the test criterionthe
functionwe know as F, and gave the correctformula
for its distribution.Thus the theoreticaldistribution
appropriatefortestsof significanceforthe analysis of
variance was known. The analysis of variance itself
appeared in 1923and FisherreintroducedtheF test in
termsofz = ?/21og F. In May 1923Fisherwas evidently
tryingto get out a table of F; but tabulationin terms
of z had obvious advantages, and it may be this idea
Gosset referredto in October when he wrote, "I like
the resultforz in the case of that horriblecurve you
are so fondof'' (Gosset 1970, no. 33).
By the summerof 1924, Fisher (1924) was ready to
summarize the relationshipsof the distributionsin-
volved, the normal,x2, t, and z. He had completed
the typescriptof Statistical Methods for Research
Workers,in which tables of these quantitieswere to
appear, but he had no tables. Gosset had felt they
shouldofferthet tables forpublicationfirstto Pearson,
but therewere doubts about the copyrightof this and
Gosset's previoustables. The outcomewas thatFisher
calculated all the tables forthe book himself.
What happened when Gosset approached Pearson
mustbe told in his own words,in a letterof 23 Novem-
ber 1923.
Dear Fisher,
Your interpolationformulaworks like a charm though
why the Dickens you chose those particularvalues of n I
can't think.I can only go on "Watsonin'!"
I was over in London on my way to and fromhome the
weekend beforelast and dropped in on K.P. I broached the
subject of a joint table withan introductorynote by you and
he was preparedto consider it: he would I thinkhave taken
it butfora mostunfortunate occurrence. Whilewe were talk-
ing he mentionedthat he was bringingout a new editionof
Tables for Biometriciansand I said 'Oh thereare one or two
mistakesin my small table in it,' referringto a discovery of
some in the odd numbersof .2 mentionedin the introduction
to my second table in Biometrika.'Well we'll put thatright.'
So I wentaway to get the correctionsforhim. That involved
gettinga 5thplace forn = 9 and I couldn'tcheck the4thplace.
I leftmy attemptand went home and when I came back on
myway to Dublin I foundthathe agreed withme and thatthe
new table was wrong. On furtherinvestigation,both tables
were foundto be perfectlyrotten.All .1 and .2 wrongin 4th
(? The AmericanStatistician,May 1981, Vol. 35, No. 2
This content downloaded from 66.195.118.21 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:23:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
place, mostlyit is trueby .0001 only, and quite a numberof
otherones. The factis thatI was even more ignorantwhen I
made the firsttable than I am now and thoughtI was going
to be accurate to 4 places by taking5 in the working!and the
second was of course constructedon the same lines though
not by me. I oughtto have checked it myself,but musthave
been prettycasual about it. Anyhowthe old man is just about
fed up withme as a computerand wouldn'teven let me cor-
rect my own table. I don't blame himeither.
Whetherhe will have anythingto do withour table I don't
know,I ratherdoubtit,butpersonallyI feelI could hardlyput
itbeforehimunless you are preparedto do quitea lotofcheck-
ing eitheryourselfor per Miss Mackenzie. Justas well you
didn't take that table fromBiometrika!It has been rathera
miserablefortnight findingout what an ass I made of myself
and fromthe point of view of the new table whollywasted.
However, I beginworkagain tomorrow.(Gosset 1970,no. 36)
Fisher must have jibbed at more checking,for two
weeks later Gosset wrote, "It seems rathera shame
to burdenyou withcheckingafterwhat you say, but I
thinkI may fairlyput your own tables up to you"
(Gosset 1970, no. 37).
Fisher was busy writingStatistical Methods, and
Mackenzie (his statistical assistant) her Master's
thesis. When Gosset was invitedto act as refereefor
this thesis in February 1924, he responded charac-
teristically,
I suppose theyappointedme because theThesis was about
barley, so of course a brewer was required, otherwise it
seems to me ratherirregular.I fearthat some of Miss Mac-
kenzie's mathematicsmay be too 'obvious' forme. (Gosset
1970, no. 40)
But he accepted the appointment,and this time he
stayedtheweekendat Fisher's home: "I travellightso
ifyou willlet me knowyouraddress I willcome straight
up withmy pack on my back" (Gosset 1970, no. 43).
Possibly he was a littleapprehensiveabout Pearson's
reaction to theirreferees' report;his excuse in May
for"rousing myselffrommylethargyto writeto you"
was that he was "consumed with curiosityto know
whatthe University[of London] thoughtof our report
on Miss Mackenzie" (Gosset 1970, no. 45).
Withthisletterof 20 May 1924Gosset sentthe com-
pleted tables, saying,
It is now up to you to writean account of the tables, and
please don't let too much be clear or obvious, I'd like to
understandas much as possible what I have been doing for
the last two years....
P.S. Ifyou could let me have youraccount quiteearlynext
monthI can take it to K.P. when I next get over.
Fisher hastened to send his contribution,and Gosset
took it with him to England. "But," as he explained
later,"unfortunately I leftitat homewhenI wentto the
Laboratory" (Gosset 1970,no. 60). It was May of the
followingyear beforehe deliveredtheirworkto Pear-
son. Two weeks later, on 12 June 1925, Gosset re-
ported:
K.P. is very anxious to publish your note about the use
of the table, but doesn't like the binomial approximation
whichhe consideredrequiresproofof convergence.It was in
vain thatI pointedout that,convergingor diverging,theproof
of the puddinglies (to me doubtlessnot to you) in thefactthat.
65
 yougetaboutsevenplacesthesamewithn = 21 to t = 6. and jokinglywould remark,"I take it thatwhateverit
Anyhow,he retumsbothand I send themherewith.... is followsat once 'obviously' froma considerationof
oughtto go into
In any case [thepaperon applications]
Biometrika.(Gosset1970,no. 61) n-dimensionalgeometry" (Gosset 1970, no. 12), or
demandof Fisherwhethera certainequation came out
Soon after,itwas decidednotto publishtheworkas a of n-dimensionalspace "or what is much the same
whole,underjointauthorship, butin partsseparately, thing,your head" (Gosset 1970, no. 61).
andGosset continued tohope thepaperonapplications
withthetablesthatwereacceptableto Pear- [Received August 1980. Revised October 1980.]
together
son wouldappearinBiometrika. Butitwas notto be.
In September all thetablesand paperswereaccepted REFERENCES
forpublicationin Metron,wheretheyappearedto-
gether,just fouryearsaftertheyhad firstbeen con- BARBACKI, S., and FISHER, R.A. (1936),"A Test of theSup-
templated,and 14yearsafterthatfirst correspondence posed Precisionof SystematicArrangements," Annals of
Eugenics, 7, 189- 193,CollectedPapers ofR.A. Fisher,3, no. 139.
thathad led Fisher to thegeometric representationof BOX, JOAN FISHER (1978), R.A. Fisher, The Life of a Scientist,
the sample, whichcame to its full in
fruition his New York:JohnWiley.
remarkablepaper "Applicationsof Student'sDis- EISENHART, CHURCHILL (1979), "On the TransitionFrom
tribution." 'Student's' z to 'Student's' t," The American Statistician,
Fisherhad written to Gosseton 17July1924: 33,6-10.
FISHER, RONALD AYLMER (1971-1974),CollectedPapers of
I enclosethetwonotesI mentioned,thefirstofwhichis an of
R.A. Fisher(5 vols.),ed. J.H. Bennett,Adelaide:University
attemptto givesomeidea ofthemultitude ofuses to which Adelaide.(See references Papers.)
to individual
yourtablemaybe put,andthesecondis a formal statement (1912), "On an AbsoluteCriterion forFittingFrequency
oftheapproximationformula. is largerthanI hadin-
Thefirst Curves," Messenger of Mathematics, 41, 155-160, Collected
tended,and to makeitat all completeshouldbe largerstill, Papers, 1, no. 1.
butI shallnothave timeto makeit so, as I am sailingfor (1916), "Biometrika," Eugenics Review, 8, 62-64, Collected
Canada on the 25th,and willnot be back tillSeptember. Papers, 1, no. 7.
(Gosset1970,no. 48) ofCorrela-
(1921),"On the'ProbableError'ofa Coefficient
tionDeducedFroma SmallSample,"Metron,1,3-32, Collected
In thispaperFisher(1925)gavea proofofStudent's Papers, 1, no. 14.
results,whichin1908hadbeenpartially Then
intuitive. Formulae,and
(1922),"The Goodnessof Fitof Regression
ofRegression
theDistribution Journal
Coefficients," oftheRoyal
he presentedapplicationsofStudent'stablesappropri-
Statistical Society, 85, 597-612, Collected Papers, 1, no. 20.
of two means,and of
ate to testingthe significance YieldingtheErrorFunctionsof
(1924),"On a Distribution
linear,curvilinear,and multipleregressions.Finally, Several Well Known Statistics,"Proceedings of theInternational
he introduced thewiderclass ofF (or equivalentlyz) Congressof Mathematics,Toronto,2, 805-813, CollectedPapers,
whichhe identified
distributions, as being 1,no. 26.
(1925), Statistical Methods for Research Workers,Edin-
...relatedto Student'sdistributioninthesamemanner as burgh:Oliverand Boyd.
thatof x2 is relatedto thenormaldistribution. This wider Metron,
of 'Student's'Distribution,"
(1925),"Applications
class of distributionsappears(i) in the studyof intraclass 5, 90-104, Collected Papers, 2, no. 43.
correlations(ii) in thecomparison of estimatesof thevari- GOSSET, W.S. (1970),LettersFrom W.S. Gossetto R.A. Fisher1915-
ance(iii)intesting thegoodnessoffitofregressionlines(iv)of 1936,withsummaries byR.A. Fisheranda forewordbyL. McMul-
testingthesignificance ofa multiple or(v) ofa cor-
correlation len,Dublin:Arthur GuinnessSon and Co. (Dublin)Ltd. Issued
relationratio.(Gosset1970,no. 102) (Lettersin thisvolumeare numbered.)
forprivatecirculation.
PEARSON,EGON S. (1968),"StudiesintheHistory ofProbability
Althoughthearticlewas not,in fact,publishedfor18 and Statistics.XX. Some EarlyCorrespondence BetweenW.S.
monthsafterbeingwritten, Fisherdid notenlargeit. Gosset,R.A. Fisherand K. PearsonWithNotesand Commen-
(Apartfromanything else, forsix monthsafterhe re- tary," Biometrika,55, 445-457.
SOPER, H.E., YOUNG, A.W.,CAVE, B.Y., LEE, A., andPEAR-
turnedfromCanada Fisher was calculatingthetables SON, KARL (1917),"On theDistribution Coef-
oftheCorrelation
and,withGossetand Somerfield, working onthe proofs ficient 11,328-413.
in SmallSamples,"Biometrika,
ofStatisticalMethodsforResearch Workers.)Perhaps "STUDENT" (1908a),TheProbableErrorofa Mean,"Biometrika,
if he had extendedthe last section,he could have 6, 1.
avoidedthe repeatedmisunderstandings thatarose a Coefficient,"
(1908b),"Probable Errorof a Correlation
Biometrika,7, 302.
decade later about of
justification the test of signifi- Due to
of SpuriousCorrelation
(1914),"The Elimination
cance fortheanalysis of variance.But the argument, PositioninTimeor Space," Biometrika,10, 179.
thoughconcise,was complete.It even containedan ofObserva-
(1925),"New TablesforTestingtheSignificance
algebraicproofanalogousto thegeometric methodof tions," Metron,5, 25-32.
proof, whose as
validity, Fisherput it (p. 97), "may (1931),"The LanarkshireMilkExperiment," Biometrika,
23, 398.
notbe universally admitted." Jour-
(1936),"Cooperationin Large-ScaleExperiments,"
It is rathersad thatevenwiththisaidto understand- nal of the Royal StatisticalSociety (Supplement),3, 115.
ing,Gossetfoundthegeometric representation always (1938),"ComparisonBetweenBalancedand RandomAr-
highlymysterious; buthe acceptedthemystification, rangements 29, 363.
of FieldPlots,"Biometrika,

66 ? The AmericanStatistician,May 1981, Vol. 35, No. 2

This content downloaded from 66.195.118.21 on Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:23:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions