Abstract

It has been argued that the probability associated with a coverage interval calculated following the procedure proposed in Supplement 1 to the GUM should be about equal to the proportion of independent intervals reckoned over time that contain the measurand (Willink 2006 Metrologia 43 L39-42, Hall 2008 Metrologia 45 L5-8, Possolo et al 2009 Metrologia 46 L1-7). The opposite point of view maintains that a coverage probability can only be interpreted as the degree of belief in the quoted interval containing the unknown value of the measurand (Lira 2008 Metrologia 45 L21-3). In this paper, two simple examples are presented to reinforce the latter interpretation. © 2009 BIPM and IOP Publishing Ltd.