I am not a mathematician, so apologises in advance for confused terminology. I think this question is related to the analytical/numerical dichotomy, but having researched these terms, I'm not clear. (see this question)
I am trying to replicate this paper and am confused by their confidence intervals. This is a maths question because I'm asking about the type of calculations used, not about the statistic itself.
Specifically, the confidence interval I'm talking about is: (- inifinty, -39.2] U [5.3, infinity) (Column 5, Row 2, page 47).
To me this interval seems to have been found both by ‘working out’ (numerical) calculations and by mathemitical reasoning (analytical). I say this because my intuition/common sense suggests you can’t arrive at infinity as a numerical solution for an answer, conversly, an analytical solution won’t delimit bounds by - 39.2 and 5.3.
Let me add that my motivation for asking this question stems from trying to replicate this interval using R. After coding up the test statistic it became obvious to me that R wouldn’t magically spit out infinity as an answer, because computer algorightms solve numerical, not analytical problems.
EDIT:
The test statistic I am talking about here is the Anderson-Rubin stat. According to this paper, an AR confidence set can take one of four values, which are found by solving a quadratic inequality, including the whole Real line and a union of two infinite intervals (Page 6).
So to re-phrase my question: I can conceptually see how R might calculate a finite interval and likewise how mathematical reasoning cold calculate an infinite interval. But I'm confused about the middle case: A union of two infinite intervals.