Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1022752" data-attributes="member: 32260">By trial and error, I have got an idea. What if we take as a &quot;Population Proportion&quot; the percentage of malware that could be blocked by Avast in the wild? I took this value (approximately) from my two-year statistics:Population Proportion ~ (7548 - 13)/7548 ~ 99.828%So we test the population where all malware samples in the wild are divided into two categories: &quot;blocked by Avast &quot; and &quot;Not blocked by Avast&quot;.Now we can use this value 99.828% as in my previous post (instead of 20%):[ATTACH=full]272597[/ATTACH]Wow! The calculated sample size is 642, almost the same as in the test (626). I am not sure if this is a coincidence or something relevant. It will require some investigation. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1022752, member: 32260"] By trial and error, I have got an idea. What if we take as a "Population Proportion" the percentage of malware that could be blocked by Avast in the wild? I took this value (approximately) from my two-year statistics: Population Proportion ~ (7548 - 13)/7548 ~ 99.828% So we test the population where all malware samples in the wild are divided into two categories: "blocked by Avast " and "Not blocked by Avast". Now we can use this value 99.828% as in my previous post (instead of 20%): [ATTACH type="full" alt="1675271364516.png"]272597[/ATTACH] Wow! The calculated sample size is 642, almost the same as in the test (626). I am not sure if this is a coincidence or something relevant. It will require some investigation. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification