Math Forum Discussions

Date

Subject

Author

5/14/12

The same four proportional weighting factors work for each
00/01/10/11 when 0.25 is subtracted from each !!!

Halitsky

5/14/12

Re: The same four proportional weighting factors work for each
00/01/10/11 when 0.25 is subtracted from each !!!

Ray Koopman

5/15/12

Re: The same four proportional weighting factors work for each
00/01/10/11 when 0.25 is subtracted from each !!!

Halitsky

5/15/12

Re: The same four proportional weighting factors work for each
00/01/10/11 when 0.25 is subtracted from each !!!

Ray Koopman

5/15/12

Re: The same four proportional weighting factors work for each
00/01/10/11 when 0.25 is subtracted from each !!!

Halitsky

5/15/12

Re: The same four proportional weighting factors work for each
00/01/10/11 when 0.25 is subtracted from each !!!

Ray Koopman

5/15/12

Re: The same four proportional weighting factors work for each
00/01/10/11 when 0.25 is subtracted from each !!!

Halitsky

5/16/12

Re: The same four proportional weighting factors work for each
00/01/10/11 when 0.25 is subtracted from each !!!

Ray Koopman

5/16/12

Is now also the time to try and equalize study and control group
sample sizes ??

Halitsky

5/16/12

Can you crunch this table to check for any issue which might affect
our "c/L" ratio?

Halitsky

5/18/12

Re: Can you crunch this table to check for any issue which might
affect our "c/L" ratio?

Ray Koopman

5/18/12

Re: Can you crunch this table to check for any issue which might
affect our "c/L" ratio?

Halitsky

5/18/12

Re: Can you crunch this table to check for any issue which might
affect our "c/L" ratio?

Ray Koopman

5/18/12

Re: Can you crunch this table to check for any issue which might
affect our "c/L" ratio?

Halitsky

5/19/12

Should I obtain "R" to do Bartlett's (or Fligner's) homoscedasticity
tests on the driver correlations?

Halitsky

5/19/12

Update re homoscedasticity testing: my wife can do them in MiniTab ....

Halitsky

5/20/12

1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization

Halitsky

5/20/12

Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization

Ray Koopman

5/20/12

Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization

Halitsky

5/21/12

Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization

Ray Koopman

5/21/12

Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization

Halitsky

5/21/12

Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization

Ray Koopman

5/21/12

Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization

Halitsky

5/22/12

Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization

Ray Koopman

5/22/12

Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization

Halitsky

5/24/12

Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization

Ray Koopman

5/24/12

Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization

Halitsky

5/24/12

Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization

Halitsky

5/22/12

Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization

Ray Koopman

5/24/12

New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study group"
t-test results

Halitsky

5/25/12

Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results

Ray Koopman

5/25/12

Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results

Halitsky

5/25/12

Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results

Ray Koopman

5/26/12

Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results

Halitsky

5/28/12

Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results

Ray Koopman

5/28/12

Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results

Halitsky

5/28/12

Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results

Halitsky

5/28/12

Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results

Ray Koopman

5/28/12

Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results

Halitsky

5/28/12

Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results

Ray Koopman

5/29/12

Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results

Ray Koopman

5/29/12

Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results

Halitsky

5/29/12

Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results

Halitsky

5/30/12

Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results

Ray Koopman

5/30/12

The other matters you raised in your post last night

Halitsky

5/30/12

Oh! - you didn't mean a MANOVA - you meant a multiple linear
regression of one DV on 2 IV's. right?

Halitsky

5/30/12

Re: Oh! - you didn't mean a MANOVA - you meant a multiple linear
regression of one DV on 2 IV's. right?

Ray Koopman

5/29/12

New question re behavior of u and x2 driver when data selected for u
> 0 vs u > 1

Halitsky

5/30/12

Re: New question re behavior of u and x2 driver when data selected
for u > 0 vs u > 1

Ray Koopman

5/30/12

kclas/mols is the unit of "e", not u

Halitsky

5/30/12

Re: kclas/mols is the unit of "e", not u

Ray Koopman

5/30/12

Comparison of avg ln(c/u) on ln(c/L) coefficients to average "UCP's"
(u-computation probabilities)

Halitsky

5/30/12

Re: Comparison of avg ln(c/u) on ln(c/L) coefficients to average
"UCP's" (u-computation probabilities)

Ray Koopman

5/30/12

The relationship of UCP's to "u"

Halitsky

5/30/12

Naturally, a stupid minor error in my above post re UCP and u

Halitsky

5/30/12

Intuitive vs actual algorithm for computing u

Halitsky

5/31/12

Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"

Ray Koopman

5/31/12

How to understand L, c, and u in terms of our allegory

Halitsky

5/31/12

Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"

Ray Koopman

5/31/12

Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"

Halitsky

5/31/12

Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"

Halitsky

6/1/12

Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"

Ray Koopman

6/1/12

Where the "63" came from

Halitsky

6/1/12

Re: Where the "63" came from

Ray Koopman

6/1/12

Re: Where the "63" came from

Halitsky

6/1/12

Re: Where the "63" came from

Halitsky

6/2/12

Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"

Ray Koopman

6/2/12

Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"

Halitsky

6/2/12

Your assessment of current method of computing "u" relative to a
given group, e.g. S63

Halitsky

6/2/12

Re: Your assessment of current method of computing "u" relative to a
given group, e.g. S63

Ray Koopman

6/2/12

Re: Your assessment of current method of computing "u" relative to a
given group, e.g. S63

Halitsky

6/2/12

Correction to presentation of "u" computation method

Halitsky

6/3/12

Re: Correction to presentation of "u" computation method

Ray Koopman

6/4/12

Re: Correction to presentation of "u" computation method

Ray Koopman

6/4/12

Re: Correction to presentation of "u" computation method

Halitsky

6/4/12

Clarification of the term "combined probability" in assertion (I) in
previous message

Halitsky

6/4/12

Please hold the fort ... I think I now see what you're saying re "u"

Halitsky

6/4/12

OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate
whether it correctly computes "u"

Halitsky

6/4/12

Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate
whether it correctly computes "u"

Ray Koopman

6/5/12

Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate
whether it correctly computes "u"

Ray Koopman

6/5/12

Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate
whether it correctly computes "u"

Halitsky

6/6/12

Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate
whether it correctly computes "u"

Ray Koopman

6/6/12

Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate
whether it correctly computes "u"

Ray Koopman

6/6/12

Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate
whether it correctly computes "u"

Halitsky

6/6/12

But I guess the u=0 problem would go away if we used u/c, e/c, and
L/c instead ....

Halitsky

6/6/12

Also, "e" has no meaning for segments in which u = 0 because N-yes = 0.

Halitsky

6/8/12

Correction of an egregiously bad "simplifying" assumption regarding
"c" ...

Halitsky

6/8/12

Re: Correction of an egregiously bad "simplifying" assumption
regarding "c" ...

Halitsky

6/9/12

Re: Correction of an egregiously bad "simplifying" assumption
regarding "c" ...

Ray Koopman

6/9/12

It's "rubber meets the road" time, Ray .... are these two regressions
sufficiently "different" ?

Halitsky

6/10/12

Restatement (improved) of previous correlation results after two
dicodon/UCP table errors corrected

Halitsky

6/11/12

Re: Restatement (improved) of previous correlation results after two
dicodon/UCP table errors corrected

Ray Koopman

6/11/12

Re: Restatement (improved) of previous correlation results after two
dicodon/UCP table errors corrected

Halitsky

6/11/12

Re: Restatement (improved) of previous correlation results after two
dicodon/UCP table errors corrected

Ray Koopman

6/11/12

Re: Restatement (improved) of previous correlation results after two
dicodon/UCP table errors corrected

Halitsky

6/11/12

Re: Restatement (improved) of previous correlation results after two
dicodon/UCP table errors corrected

Ray Koopman

6/11/12

1) thanks for the additional summary stats; 2) next critical question
requiring your evaluation

Halitsky

6/12/12

Re: 1) thanks for the additional summary stats; 2) next critical
question requiring your evaluation

Ray Koopman

6/12/12

Re: 1) thanks for the additional summary stats; 2) next critical
question requiring your evaluation

Halitsky

6/13/12

Re: 1) thanks for the additional summary stats; 2) next critical
question requiring your evaluation

Ray Koopman

6/13/12

Re: 1) thanks for the additional summary stats; 2) next critical
question requiring your evaluation

Halitsky

6/14/12

New question: could u on c*L (no logs) be logarithmic (over ALL
length intervals)

gimpeltf@hotmail.com

6/15/12

Re: New question: could u on c*L (no logs) be logarithmic (over ALL
length intervals)

Ray Koopman

6/15/12

Re: New question: could u on c*L (no logs) be logarithmic (over ALL
length intervals)

Halitsky

6/15/12

Re: New question: could u on c*L (no logs) be logarithmic (over ALL
length intervals)

gimpeltf@hotmail.com

6/15/12

Re: New question: could u on c*L (no logs) be logarithmic (over ALL
length intervals)

Halitsky

6/15/12

Critical question re proper way to argue from slope CI
overlaps/non-overlaps among S63, S63R, and C711

Halitsky

6/16/12

Re: Critical question re proper way to argue from slope CI
overlaps/non-overlaps among S63, S63R, and C711

Ray Koopman

6/16/12

How stupid am I? Of course I had the Y's and the N's reversed ...

Halitsky

6/16/12

Re: How stupid am I? Of course I had the Y's and the N's reversed ...

Ray Koopman

6/16/12

Re: How stupid am I? Of course I had the Y's and the N's reversed ...

Halitsky

6/16/12

Correction: there is a slope CI overlap for a1 len 25 ln(c/u) on
ln(c/L) for S63 vs S63R

Halitsky

6/18/12

Current Status and New Question re ln(c/u) on ln(c/L)

Halitsky

6/18/12

Re: Current Status and New Question re ln(c/u) on ln(c/L)

Halitsky

6/18/12

Re: Current Status and New Question re ln(c/u) on ln(c/L)

Halitsky

6/19/12

All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Halitsky

6/19/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Halitsky

6/19/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Halitsky

6/22/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Ray Koopman

6/22/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Ray Koopman

6/22/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Ray Koopman

6/22/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Halitsky

6/23/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Ray Koopman

6/23/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Halitsky

6/24/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Ray Koopman

6/24/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Halitsky

6/24/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Ray Koopman

6/24/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Halitsky

6/25/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Ray Koopman

6/25/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Halitsky

6/25/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Halitsky

6/26/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Ray Koopman

6/26/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Halitsky

6/26/12

I see what you're saying now about the length intervals - it's MY
code that has shifted the intervals down !

Halitsky

6/26/12

Since I'm rerunning a1 and a3, do you have any thoughts on how I
should run ln(c/u) on ln(c/L) ?

Halitsky

6/26/12

I'm taking a day or two to automate some error-prone manual
processing steps

Halitsky

6/27/12

Would it be possible for me to do the "set-wise" regression
significance comparisons on my side?

Halitsky

6/27/12

Re: Would it be possible for me to do the "set-wise" regression
significance comparisons on my side?

Ray Koopman

6/27/12

Re: Would it be possible for me to do the "set-wise" regression
significance comparisons on my side?

Halitsky

6/27/12

One dumb question (just this one I hope) about getting p's from t's ...

Halitsky

6/27/12

Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK to
use here?

Halitsky

6/28/12

Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK
to use here?

Ray Koopman

6/28/12

Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK to use here?

Gaj Vidmar

6/28/12

Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK
to use here?

Halitsky

6/28/12

Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK
to use here?

Halitsky

6/28/12

Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be
OK to use here?

Art Kendall

6/28/12

Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK
to use here?

Halitsky

6/28/12

Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be
OK to use here?

Art Kendall

6/28/12

Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK
to use here?

Halitsky

6/28/12

Permissible comparative sizes of N's for sets being compared by your
t-test (and correction) algorithm

Halitsky

6/28/12

Re: Permissible comparative sizes of N's for sets being compared by
your t-test (and correction) algorithm

Ray Koopman

6/28/12

Next question: df's at each "layer" in a "Russian egg" significance
testing protocol

Halitsky

6/29/12

Re: Next question: df's at each "layer" in a "Russian egg"
significance testing protocol

Ray Koopman

6/29/12

Re: Next question: df's at each "layer" in a "Russian egg"
significance testing protocol

Halitsky

6/29/12

Typo in previous post - test-count = 24, not 48

Halitsky

6/30/12

Re: Next question: df's at each "layer" in a "Russian egg"
significance testing protocol

Ray Koopman

6/30/12

Re: Next question: df's at each "layer" in a "Russian egg"
significance testing protocol

Halitsky

6/30/12

But we COULD try t-testing corresponding sets of residuals per len
interval, if you think it valid to do so

Halitsky

7/1/12

Could you double-check me on the "custom t-test" calculation just
this once before you leave Tue?

Halitsky

7/2/12

Re: Could you double-check me on the "custom t-test" calculation just
this once before you leave Tue?

Ray Koopman

7/2/12

Re: Could you double-check me on the "custom t-test" calculation just
this once before you leave Tue?

Halitsky

7/2/12

I'm now a "Bonferroni-believer"!!! (At least till the results go the
WRONG way ...)

Halitsky

7/2/12

Re: I'm now a "Bonferroni-believer"!!! (At least till the results go
the WRONG way ...)

Halitsky

7/2/12

Bonferroni calculation results for ln(c/e) on ln(c/L) for Family 1

Halitsky

7/2/12

Re: I'm now a "Bonferroni-believer"!!! (At least till the results go
the WRONG way ...)

Ray Koopman

7/2/12

Corrected Bonferroni data for ln(ce) on ln(c/L) for Family 1, and 1
question on "random outliers"

Halitsky

7/4/12

Full results of test-suite on fold a1 AFTER intra-family Bonferroni correction

gimpeltf@hotmail.com

7/11/12

Post of offline email (7/11) re a1/a3/b1 results, for later
referenceability if needed

Halitsky

7/11/12

Re: Post of offline email (7/11) re a1/a3/b1 results, for later
referenceability if needed

Halitsky

7/17/12

Results of Bonferroni-corrected significance testing across all six
folds now complete

Halitsky

7/19/12

Quick specific question about bringing variance of a set of
observations to an expected value.

Halitsky

7/19/12

Re: Quick specific question about bringing variance of a set of
observations to an expected value.

Ray Koopman

7/19/12

Re: Quick specific question about bringing variance of a set of
observations to an expected value.

Halitsky

7/23/12

Can your custom t-test be run on means and variances as well as on
slopes and SE's or intercepts and SE's ?

Halitsky

7/23/12

Same question as last post, but with variance and sd of residuals
instead of mean and var ....

Halitsky

7/23/12

Example of variance and sd of residuals decreasing across length
intervals 1 to 12

Halitsky

7/23/12

Re: Example of variance and sd of residuals decreasing across length
intervals 1 to 12

Halitsky

7/23/12

Re: Can your custom t-test be run on means and variances as well as
on slopes and SE's or intercepts and SE's ?

Ray Koopman

7/23/12

OK - then how about this alternative approach to patterns of variances?

Halitsky

7/24/12

Re: OK - then how about this alternative approach to patterns of variances?

Ray Koopman

7/24/12

Re: OK - then how about this alternative approach to patterns of variances?

Ray Koopman

7/24/12

Thanks! but a quick question about thee construct "adjusted SD" ...

Halitsky

7/24/12

Oh wait a second ... by "adjusted SD" do you simply mean the one with
N-1 rather than N in the denominator?

Halitsky

7/24/12

Re: Oh wait a second ... by "adjusted SD" do you simply mean the one
with N-1 rather than N in the denominator?

Ray Koopman

7/24/12

So N-2 instead of N-1 ???? (sorry to be a nuisance .)

Halitsky

7/24/12

Re: So N-2 instead of N-1 ???? (sorry to be a nuisance .)

Ray Koopman

7/24/12

Re: So N-2 instead of N-1 ???? (sorry to be a nuisance .)

Halitsky

7/24/12

is there a way you "adjudicate" a case like this (0.00002 slope CI
overlap and 0.00017 intcpt CI overlap)?

Halitsky

7/24/12

Re: is there a way you "adjudicate" a case like this (0.00002 slope
CI overlap and 0.00017 intcpt CI overlap)?

Ray Koopman

7/24/12

Re: is there a way you "adjudicate" a case like this (0.00002 slope
CI overlap and 0.00017 intcpt CI overlap)?

Halitsky

7/24/12

Re: is there a way you "adjudicate" a case like this (0.00002 slope
CI overlap and 0.00017 intcpt CI overlap)?

Ray Koopman

7/25/12

Results of fold-discrimination analysis via adjusted SD analysis

Halitsky

7/26/12

A follow-up note about fold c1 in fold-discrimination matrix
presented in last post

Halitsky

7/26/12

Re: A follow-up note about fold c1 in fold-discrimination matrix
presented in last post

Ray Koopman

7/26/12

Re: A follow-up note about fold c1 in fold-discrimination matrix
presented in last post

Halitsky

7/27/12

Re: A follow-up note about fold c1 in fold-discrimination matrix
presented in last post

Ray Koopman

7/27/12

Re: A follow-up note about fold c1 in fold-discrimination matrix
presented in last post

Halitsky

7/27/12

Results of “Cross-Filtering” Approach Suggested
in Previous Post

Halitsky

7/27/12

Test post to check line size - please ignore

Halitsky

8/1/12

If I'd only thought more carefully about a suggestion you made 2
months ago ....

Halitsky

8/2/12

Two really quick questions about Bonferroni corrections

Halitsky

8/2/12

Re: Two really quick questions about Bonferroni corrections

Ray Koopman

8/2/12

Re: Two really quick questions about Bonferroni corrections

Halitsky

8/2/12

Re: Two really quick questions about Bonferroni corrections

Richard Ulrich

8/3/12

Re: Two really quick questions about Bonferroni corrections

Halitsky

8/3/12

QUICK question about whether a certain result is/isn
’t sample-size independent

Halitsky

8/5/12

I'm proceeding without your answer to my last question, BUT ...

Halitsky

8/5/12

Re: I'm proceeding without your answer to my last question, BUT ...

Ray Koopman

8/5/12

Re: I'm proceeding without your answer to my last question, BUT ...

Halitsky

8/5/12

Example tabulation of N's and QUICK question re a possible sampling
protocol ...

Halitsky

8/5/12

PS - I think you suggested a protocol like the above some time ago ...

Halitsky

8/7/12

Example of Bonferroni ranking (presumably) independent of sample size

Halitsky

8/15/12

Re: Example tabulation of N's and QUICK question re a possible
sampling protocol ...

Ray Koopman

8/15/12

Before I go to bootstrapping, could you evaluate one last simple proposal?

Halitsky

8/15/12

Re: Before I go to bootstrapping, could you evaluate one last simple proposal?

Ray Koopman

8/15/12

OOPS! But is there another way to test the two sets of eigenvalues ?????

Halitsky

8/16/12

Re: OOPS! But is there another way to test the two sets of
eigenvalues ?????

Ray Koopman

8/16/12

OK - it looks like we can wrap this thread up ...

Halitsky

8/8/12

Re: QUICK question about whether a certain result is
/isn’t sample-size independent

Ray Koopman

8/8/12

When you “return”, please note the LATEST propos
ed design in my posts of 8/5@720&738 and 8/7@731

Halitsky

8/15/12

Re: When you “return”, please note the LATEST pr
oposed design in my posts of 8/5@720&738 and 8/7@731

Ray Koopman

8/15/12

My question was whether the intercept of x1 on x2,x3 is common to
BOTH regression lines of this multiple regression.

Halitsky

8/15/12

Re: My question was whether the intercept of x1 on x2,x3 is common to
BOTH regression lines of this multiple regression.

Ray Koopman

8/15/12

My problem is understanding the single intercept that Excel reports
for x1 on (x2,x3)

Halitsky

8/15/12

Re: My problem is understanding the single intercept that Excel
reports for x1 on (x2,x3)

Ray Koopman

8/15/12

Re: My problem is understanding the single intercept that Excel
reports for x1 on (x2,x3)

Halitsky

8/13/12

Re: QUICK question about whether a certain result is
/isn’t sample-size independent

Ray Koopman

8/13/12

Re: QUICK question about whether a certain result is
/isn’t sample-size independent

Halitsky

8/22/12

Would you have time to devise the test for comparing a simple and a
multiple regression?

Halitsky

8/23/12

Re: Would you have time to devise the test for comparing a simple and
a multiple regression?

Ray Koopman

8/23/12

We may be talking at cross-purposes - I'm not sure ...

Halitsky

8/24/12

Re: We may be talking at cross-purposes - I'm not sure ...

Ray Koopman

8/25/12

I trust your ability to see statistical clarity through the messiness

Halitsky

8/31/12

Re: I trust your ability to see statistical clarity through the messiness

Ray Koopman

8/31/12

Thanks for characterizing the nature of the d.v to look for ...

Halitsky

8/31/12

Correction of two typo's in prior post

Halitsky

9/3/12

Re: Thanks for characterizing the nature of the d.v to look for ...

Ray Koopman

9/3/12

If the results herein are technically legit, then you're easy a
genius, or very very experienced, or both.

Halitsky

9/4/12

Re: If the results herein are technically legit, then you're easy a
genius, or very very experienced, or both.

Ray Koopman

9/4/12

Re: If the results herein are technically legit, then you're easy a
genius, or very very experienced, or both.

Halitsky

9/5/12

Re: If the results herein are technically legit, then you're easy a
genius, or very very experienced, or both.

Ray Koopman

9/5/12

Sorry - I misunderstood your term "error variances" in your post of 8/24@823.

Halitsky

9/5/12

A technical problem with Anderson's LineFit module is what confused
me about the "variances"

Halitsky

9/5/12

Can N-related loss of confidence be quantified for each result of
your original custom heteroscedastic T?

Halitsky

9/6/12

Re: Can N-related loss of confidence be quantified for each result of
your original custom heteroscedastic T?

Ray Koopman

9/6/12

Re: Can N-related loss of confidence be quantified for each result of
your original custom heteroscedastic T?

Halitsky

9/6/12

Two more follow-on questions to the two I just asked in my last post
of 9/6@5:36 am

Halitsky

9/6/12

PS - Our control set expansion from 1 to 3 is not only scientifically
justifiable, but scientifically obligatory ....

gimpeltf@hotmail.com

9/6/12

Re: PS - Our control set expansion from 1 to 3 is not only
scientifically justifiable, but scientifically obligatory ....

Ray Koopman

9/6/12

Sorry for the obscure presentation of the sets - here's a clear "laydown"

Halitsky

9/9/12

New example summary and detail files

Halitsky

9/9/12

Re: New example summary and detail files

Ray Koopman

9/9/12

Re: New example summary and detail files

Halitsky

9/10/12

Re: New example summary and detail files

Ray Koopman

9/10/12

Thanks... three questions re your last post (quickly answerable, I
hope ...)

Halitsky

9/11/12

Re: Thanks... three questions re your last post (quickly answerable,
I hope ...)

Ray Koopman

9/11/12

Thanks (correction of variance and CIs of slope differences)

Halitsky

9/11/12

Could you check (and explain) this “negative t”
case?

Halitsky

9/11/12

Re: Could you check (and explain) this “negative t
” case?

Ray Koopman

9/11/12

Re: Could you check (and explain) this “negative t
” case?

Halitsky

9/9/12

Custom heteroscedastic test is working in Perl but with integer "ft"
and 6 decimal places for returned p;

Halitsky

9/11/12

Re: Custom heteroscedastic test is working in Perl but with integer
"ft" and 6 decimal places for returned p;

Ray Koopman

9/11/12

Yes - the opensource lib of Perl math modules does have a betainc ...

Halitsky

9/11/12

Re: Yes - the opensource lib of Perl math modules does have a betainc ...

Ray Koopman

9/11/12

Re: Yes - the opensource lib of Perl math modules does have a betainc ...

Halitsky

9/12/12

If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are encouraging
(I think)

Halitsky

9/12/12

Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are
encouraging (I think)

Ray Koopman

9/12/12

Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are
encouraging (I think)

Halitsky

9/13/12

Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are
encouraging (I think)

Ray Koopman

9/13/12

But 1.6457 is NOT the value you want , correct ? (Because Excel
T.INV.T returns your 1.96127986 )

Halitsky

9/13/12

Re: But 1.6457 is NOT the value you want , correct ? (Because Excel
T.INV.T returns your 1.96127986 )

Ray Koopman

9/13/12

Yes - you're correct! - Even for the "grown-up" inverse t, I have to
give it 1 minus HALF of (1 minus desired CI)

Halitsky

9/13/12

Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are encouraging
(I think)

Bruce Weaver

9/13/12

Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are
encouraging (I think)

Ray Koopman

9/13/12

Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are encouraging
(I think)

Bruce Weaver

9/13/12

Which do YOU think are the "n independent parameters" for the
multiple CI evaluation?

Halitsky

9/14/12

Re: Which do YOU think are the "n independent parameters" for the
multiple CI evaluation?

Ray Koopman

9/14/12

OK. Then seven separate analyes with n = 12 for the ".95^(1/n)" CIs.

Halitsky

9/14/12

Re: OK. Then seven separate analyes with n = 12 for the ".95^(1/n)" CIs.

Ray Koopman

9/14/12

Re: OK. Then seven separate analyes with n = 12 for the ".95^(1/n)" CIs.

Halitsky

9/14/12

Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"

Halitsky

9/14/12

Re: Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"

Ray Koopman

9/14/12

Re: Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"

Halitsky

9/15/12

Re: Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"

Ray Koopman

9/15/12

Re: Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"

Ray Koopman

9/15/12

Yes - your last instructions give me same tCI's as yours - sorry for
my confusion

Halitsky

9/15/12

Re: Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"

Ray Koopman

9/15/12

k-2 for Re, Ru coeff's vs k-3 for Reu coeffs

Halitsky

9/15/12

k = 3 changes df from ~1804 to ~1785 for the "euSu" coefficient

Halitsky

9/15/12

Am sending a zip file with complete CI results for a1 fold across all
cells of the design ...

Halitsky

9/15/12

Had you already looked at the data or did you simply have a great
experience-based hunch?

Halitsky

9/15/12

CI Partition analysis for all seven co-efficients (a1 fold only)

Halitsky

9/17/12

I've got the CI data for the other 5 folds, but don't want to post
them if the "thirds" approach is wrong ...

Halitsky

9/20/12

Re: I've got the CI data for the other 5 folds, but don't want to
post them if the "thirds" approach is wrong ...

Ray Koopman

9/20/12

1) Thanks for the algorithm! 2) your initial a1 plot should please
both JRF and AML

Halitsky

9/20/12

Since your plot was for the eI coefficient, my previous comments were
relative only to THAT coefficient

Halitsky

9/21/12

Here are the plots for all 7 coeff's for the a1 fold, along with some comments/questions

Halitsky

9/21/12

Re: Here are the plots for all 7 coeff's for the a1 fold, along with
some comments/questions

Ray Koopman

9/21/12

CI plots for a3 fold

Halitsky

9/21/12

CI plots for b1 fold

Halitsky

9/21/12

CI plots for b47 fold

Halitsky

9/21/12

CI plots for c1 fold

Halitsky

9/21/12

CI plots for c2 fold

Halitsky

9/22/12

Tabulation of S:C cell pairs which correlate with non-overlapping CI's

Halitsky

9/23/12

Re: Tabulation of S:C cell pairs which correlate with non-overlapping CI's

Ray Koopman

9/23/12

OK - then here are four specific questions involving patterns (not
counts) of significant results

Halitsky

9/23/12

Please discard all posted CI results!! My computation of LL and HH
was wrong !

Halitsky

9/23/12

Re: Please discard all posted CI results!! My computation of LL and
HH was wrong !

Ray Koopman

9/23/12

Thanks for that clarification: will recompute with 72 CI's per plot
and (LL,HH) per each 72

Halitsky

9/23/12

I've sent you the CI plots per coefficient, and am now ready to throw
in the towel

Halitsky

9/24/12

Re: I've sent you the CI plots per coefficient, and am now ready to
throw in the towel

Ray Koopman

9/24/12

Re: I've sent you the CI plots per coefficient, and am now ready to
throw in the towel

Halitsky

9/24/12

Please review the eS, eI, and euI plots that I've sent you offline
for the "uA" design (multiplicity = 36)

Halitsky

9/25/12

Re: Please review the eS, eI, and euI plots that I've sent you
offline for the "uA" design (multiplicity = 36)

Ray Koopman

9/25/12

Thanks for taking a look at the uA plots; please permit some
questions about the custom t-test itself

Halitsky

9/25/12

one more question (sorry!): can N be validly regressed on (e,u,L)?

Halitsky

9/27/12

Re: one more question (sorry!): can N be validly regressed on (e,u,L)?

Ray Koopman

9/27/12

Re: Thanks for taking a look at the uA plots; please permit some
questions about the custom t-test itself

Ray Koopman

9/27/12

OK, then please do NOT misinterpret my motivation for asking this
next question ....

Halitsky

9/28/12

Re: OK, then please do NOT misinterpret my motivation for asking this
next question ....

Ray Koopman

9/28/12

Re: OK, then please do NOT misinterpret my motivation for asking this
next question ....

Halitsky

9/29/12

When a small set of p's passes the IOTT, is a Bonferroni correction
still required?

Halitsky

9/30/12

Can the argument from means be tightened by t-testin
g means “across N, R” as well as “across S, C”?

Halitsky

9/30/12

Augmented tables for remaining five folds (results of t-testing
mean(ln(e)) ...

Halitsky

10/1/12

Re: Can the argument from means be tightened by t-te
sting means “across N, R” as well as “across S, C”?

Ray Koopman

10/1/12

Thanks! Also, please note I'm going to bite the bullet and
"Fisher-Yates" the real data 20 times ....

Halitsky

10/1/12

Minor typo in previous post (Astrings instead of Cstrings in one place)

Halitsky

10/1/12

Re: Thanks! Also, please note I'm going to bite the bullet and
"Fisher-Yates" the real data 20 times ....

Ray Koopman

10/1/12

Yes. please (more detail on the "build-up" of variances and df's)

Halitsky

10/2/12

Re: Yes. please (more detail on the "build-up" of variances and df's)

Ray Koopman

10/2/12

1) my restatement of your explanation of the formula; 2)
clarification of "random vs non-random"

Halitsky

10/2/12

Re: 1) my restatement of your explanation of the formula; 2)
clarification of "random vs non-random"

Ray Koopman

10/2/12

Ahh! "4" meant "point 4", not "4 of something" ...

Halitsky

10/3/12

Could you check this one result before I run the 1728?

Halitsky

10/4/12

Also, please note I used raw e's, not ln(e)'s ...

Halitsky

10/4/12

Also: NOT length interval = 25. Length interval = 1 (lowest)

Halitsky

10/4/12

Re: Also: NOT length interval = 25. Length interval = 1 (lowest)

Ray Koopman

10/4/12

Unfortunately, I think we now have an absolute rule-out, at least
when trying to use mean of raw e ...

Halitsky

10/4/12

Forgot to ask: is it worth "leveraging-up" even though no "base" p
per length interval is < 0.23 ?

Halitsky

10/5/12

Re: Forgot to ask: is it worth "leveraging-up" even though no "base"
p per length interval is < 0.23 ?

Ray Koopman

10/5/12

Have taken logs; will now leverage; while I'm doing so, could you
consider this possible design error?

Halitsky

10/5/12

We MAY be on the right track; if so, how can I possibly thank/repay you?

Halitsky

10/5/12

Technical follow-up question re “n choose 2” ana
lysis of table in last post

Halitsky

10/5/12

Please forgive the "rose-colored glasses" typo of 0.00013 in my last
post; of course it's 0.0013

Halitsky

10/5/12

Re: Please forgive the "rose-colored glasses" typo of 0.00013 in my
last post; of course it's 0.0013

Ray Koopman

10/5/12

Re: Technical follow-up question re “n choose 2”
analysis of table in last post

Ray Koopman

10/5/12

I have to ask you to clarify your response, and also specify how to
"look at" the t numerator ...

Halitsky

10/5/12

Here is the table of t-numerators, sorted in DECREASING order within
fold ....

Halitsky

10/6/12

Correct table of "t-numerators" (prior table was t's themselves); but
0.0013 result still holds.

Halitsky

10/6/12

Here are the 10 values of the Ornstein-Fresco index used in our
calculation of raw e

Halitsky

10/6/12

Calculations in my last post were clearly wrong (re t-num diff's vs
Ornstein-Fresco index spread)

Halitsky

10/13/12

Re: Here are the 10 values of the Ornstein-Fresco index used in our
calculation of raw e

Ray Koopman

10/13/12

Re: Here are the 10 values of the Ornstein-Fresco index used in our
calculation of raw e

Halitsky

10/13/12

Yes - but actually, all the t's should be changed to u's because the
numbers are for RNA, not DNA

Halitsky

10/13/12

Re: Yes - but actually, all the t's should be changed to u's because
the numbers are for RNA, not DNA

Ray Koopman

10/13/12

Re: Yes - but actually, all the t's should be changed to u's because
the numbers are for RNA, not DNA

Halitsky

10/13/12

I looked at the Gibley Ahlquist passage - they're dealing with the
O-F indices on the DNA side of the house ...

Halitsky

10/14/12

1) PDF's of the O-F papers have been emailed; 2) spoke with Jacques,
will speak further with him on Tue

Halitsky

10/14/12

Re: 1) PDF's of the O-F papers have been emailed; 2) spoke with
Jacques, will speak further with him on Tue

Ray Koopman

10/14/12

Correct p's and df's for Y, Z, Y-Z for 1:R1, 2:R2, 3:R3

Halitsky

10/15/12

Finally - a result consistent with our earliest logistic regression
alignability result using a predictor derived from eS of Re

Halitsky

10/15/12

Re: Finally - a result consistent with our earliest logistic
regression alignability result using a predictor derived from eS of Re

Ray Koopman

10/15/12

An attempt to appopriately organize and caption the three previous tables

Halitsky

10/16/12

Relationship of eS to ln(e) (via IOTT and Linear Regression)

Halitsky

10/16/12

Oops - sorry: one exception to the IOTT result for uH stated in
previous post

Halitsky

10/18/12

Re: An attempt to appopriately organize and caption the three
previous tables

Ray Koopman

10/18/12

You really are too kind ... seriously ...

Halitsky

10/18/12

Re: You really are too kind ... seriously ...

Ray Koopman

10/18/12

1)Thanks! ( I was taking varY and VarZ to the .05 power, not the .5
power !);

Halitsky

10/20/12

Please consider this analysis of mean ln(e) sums and mean eS sums.

Halitsky

10/20/12

Your basic plot algorithm MAY help inject a significant dose of
empirical reality into the analysis

Halitsky

10/20/12

Please consider these interaction p’s in re our st
rategy for prediction of structural alignability via logisti
c regression.

Halitsky

10/21/12

Now that you’ve shown how to tell “where”, can
you show how to tell “why”?

Halitsky

10/18/12

Jacques' summary response re scaling of e

Halitsky

10/22/12

Re: Jacques' summary response re scaling of e

Ray Koopman

10/22/12

Do you have any suggestions about how to "convert" the O-F index for
our purposes?

Halitsky

10/22/12

Re: Do you have any suggestions about how to "convert" the O-F index
for our purposes?

Ray Koopman

10/22/12

Re: Do you have any suggestions about how to "convert" the O-F index
for our purposes?

Halitsky

10/23/12

Re: Do you have any suggestions about how to "convert" the O-F index
for our purposes?

Ray Koopman

10/23/12

Believe it or not, I can now answer your questions re the O-F index
clearly and concisely.

Halitsky

10/23/12

Re: Believe it or not, I can now answer your questions re the O-F
index clearly and concisely.

Ray Koopman

10/23/12

Whoops - sorry! I recapped my code from memory incorrectly.

Halitsky

10/24/12

Re: Whoops - sorry! I recapped my code from memory incorrectly.

Ray Koopman

10/24/12

Re: Whoops - sorry! I recapped my code from memory incorrectly.

Halitsky

10/24/12

Have heard from JRF; he's OK with a composite OFI per dicodon
(defined as a sum, not an average.)

Halitsky

10/25/12

Re: Have heard from JRF; he's OK with a composite OFI per dicodon
(defined as a sum, not an average.)

Ray Koopman

10/25/12

Re: Have heard from JRF; he's OK with a composite OFI per dicodon
(defined as a sum, not an average.)

Halitsky

10/25/12

Minor correction to last post regarding "e = S / 3"

Halitsky

10/25/12

Re: Have heard from JRF; he's OK with a composite OFI per dicodon
(defined as a sum, not an average.)

Ray Koopman

10/25/12

Re: Have heard from JRF; he's OK with a composite OFI per dicodon
(defined as a sum, not an average.)

Halitsky

10/25/12

You've probably realized by now that the dH for a single doublet ONLY
has scientific meaning as a unit in an additive calculation.

Halitsky

10/25/12

Re: Have heard from JRF; he's OK with a composite OFI per dicodon
(defined as a sum, not an average.)

Ray Koopman

10/25/12

You’re correct: the dhbarcalc for the equation IS
an AVERAGE, not a SUM.

Halitsky

10/26/12

Am sending off-line a "csv" file with the Tm's and Kelvin Tm's for
the 3721 "non-stop" dicodons

Halitsky

10/27/12

Re: Am sending off-line a "csv" file with the Tm's and Kelvin Tm's
for the 3721 "non-stop" dicodons

Ray Koopman

10/28/12

Interaction p’s using “new e”

Halitsky

10/28/12

Re: Interaction p’s using “new e”

Ray Koopman

10/28/12

Re: Interaction p’s using “new e”

Ray Koopman

10/28/12

I figured the Bonferroni-correction was coming ...

Halitsky

10/29/12

My naive opinion is that "new e" clarifies the situation considerably ...

Halitsky

10/29/12

Correction of two obvious typos in Ru section of last posted table

Halitsky

10/29/12

Re: My naive opinion is that "new e" clarifies the situation
considerably ...

Ray Koopman

10/29/12

Re: My naive opinion is that "new e" clarifies the situation
considerably ...

Halitsky

10/29/12

Re: My naive opinion is that "new e" clarifies the situation
considerably ...

Ray Koopman

10/29/12

Re: My naive opinion is that "new e" clarifies the situation
considerably ...

Halitsky

10/29/12

Is there a standard ranking function which takes into account |x-y|
as well as x/y ?

Halitsky

10/31/12

Re: Is there a standard ranking function which takes into account
|x-y| as well as x/y ?

Ray Koopman

10/31/12

Please agree to or improve on the following interaction nomenclature

gimpeltf@hotmail.com

11/2/12

Re: Please agree to or improve on the following interaction nomenclature

Ray Koopman

11/2/12

Now that I “understand” the effect/interaction s
caffold, I can better frame objectives/goals.

Halitsky

11/2/12

Minor but confusing typo in (V,B,4) of last post

Halitsky

11/4/12

I MAY have a correct generalization, but don’t wan
t to post prematurely.

Halitsky

11/5/12

Re: I MAY have a correct generalization, but don’t
want to post prematurely.

Ray Koopman

11/5/12

My apologies for the "overload", and thanks for the "go-ahead"

Halitsky

11/7/12

Follow-up question I forgot to ask re ln(L) on (ln(c),ln(e)) and
ln(L) on (ln(c),ln(u)) ...

Halitsky

11/8/12

Nope – those 2 new regressions don’t work out at
all

Halitsky

11/9/12

Within length intervals, it IS OK to consider ln(c) on ln(e) and
ln(c) on ln(u).

Halitsky

11/10/12

Re: My apologies for the "overload", and thanks for the "go-ahead"

Ray Koopman

11/10/12

Thanks for the review of the putative generalization ...

Halitsky

11/10/12

Please note that one column of the second table in my last post "wrapped"

Halitsky

11/11/12

Is this 1997 study a good practical example of a trivariate
distribution analysis?

Halitsky

11/11/12

Re: Is this 1997 study a good practical example of a trivariate
distribution analysis?

Ray Koopman

11/12/12

1) thanks; 2) the simplified regressions in my prior post; 3) Ogle's
algorithm for generating bivariate normals with specific correlations

Halitsky

11/12/12

Re: 1) thanks; 2) the simplified regressions in my prior post; 3)
Ogle's algorithm for generating bivariate normals with specific correlations

Ray Koopman

11/12/12

Thansk for taking the time to try and decipher my reasoning re 3-ways
associated with the simplified model ...

Halitsky

11/12/12

Not sure if last post went thru, so am reposting - may result in a duplicate

Halitsky

11/16/12

Re: Not sure if last post went thru, so am reposting - may result in
a duplicate

Ray Koopman

11/16/12

Your latest assessment of the situation

Halitsky

11/16/12

Your "3-way" methodology has revealed two data tendencies wondrously
subtle and elegant ....

Halitsky

11/18/12

1) Good news: two scientifically reasonable results;
2) Bad news: they don’t withstand Bonferroni correction

Halitsky

11/18/12

Have sent you off-line a file of uL and uH medians (
I’ve changed to your median approach)

Halitsky

11/16/12

A computationally cheap way to visualize “(e,c,u)|
L” (cheaper than trivariate analysis)

Halitsky

11/16/12

Re: A computationally cheap way to visualize “(e,c
,u)|L” (cheaper than trivariate analysis)

Ray Koopman

11/16/12

I had a sneaking suspicion you were going to insist on mapping to [0,1].

Halitsky

11/19/12

Re: I had a sneaking suspicion you were going to insist on mapping to [0,1].

Ray Koopman

11/19/12

Thanks for your formalization of the “centroid”
mechanics and the estiamte of their possible utility

Halitsky

11/20/12

Re: Thanks for your formalization of the “centroid
” mechanics and the estiamte of their possible utility

Ray Koopman

11/20/12

1) Thanks for reviewing the “u-relativization” p
roposal; 2) question re “centroids”

Halitsky

11/20/12

Re: 1) Thanks for reviewing the “u-relativization
” proposal; 2) question re “centroids”

Ray Koopman

11/20/12

Responses (various) to your last (11/20:454pm)

Halitsky

10/23/12

A postscript from Jacques ...

Halitsky

10/8/12

If we had data for 20 folds instead of 6, could we argue from the new
result herein ?

Halitsky

10/8/12

The result in my previous post suggests a design sim
plification that MAY yield CI plots with decent “splits”

Halitsky

10/9/12

Re: If we had data for 20 folds instead of 6, could we argue from the
new result herein ?

Ray Koopman

10/9/12

Reply to your post of 10/9 at 3:54pm

Halitsky

10/10/12

Re: Reply to your post of 10/9 at 3:54pm

Ray Koopman

10/10/12

Please check if I understand how to get (Y,varY, dfY) at uL

Halitsky

10/11/12

Re: Please check if I understand how to get (Y,varY, dfY) at uL

Ray Koopman

10/11/12

Thanks(!) for the clarification – please just chec
k me now on the very first step.

Halitsky

10/11/12

Re: Thanks(!) for the clarification – please just
check me now on the very first step.

Ray Koopman

10/12/12

Re: Thanks(!) for the clarification – please just
check me now on the very first step.

Ray Koopman

10/12/12

Thanks again; now, please permit a question about applicability of
the protocol to coefficients

Halitsky

10/12/12

Re: Thanks again; now, please permit a question about applicability
of the protocol to coefficients

Ray Koopman

10/12/12

Are these "good enough" to keep going: pY at uL~.95, pZ at uH~.33,
p(Y-Z)~.23 ???

Halitsky

10/12/12

Forgot to mention: as you expected, df(Y), df(Z), and df(Y-Z) were
huge ...

Halitsky

10/12/12

Re: Forgot to mention: as you expected, df(Y), df(Z), and df(Y-Z)
were huge ...

Ray Koopman

10/12/12

I assume you're referring to the null hypothesis here, i.e. that the
means are the same ...

Halitsky

10/12/12

Re: Are these "good enough" to keep going: pY at uL~.95, pZ at
uH~.33, p(Y-Z)~.23 ???

Ray Koopman

10/12/12

Re vars vs SE's ...

Halitsky

10/10/12

Regarding the question of fold-generalizability, here's the question ...

Halitsky

10/11/12

Re: Regarding the question of fold-generalizability, here's the
question ...

Ray Koopman

10/9/12

S and new C subsets for dicodon set 1 (showing that
expected u’s are now the same for S and C)

Halitsky

10/1/12

Two follow-on POSSIBLE “$64K” questions (I’m H
OPING you MAY agree that they are!)

Halitsky

9/21/12

Before doing the other five folds, I should state "a priori" what
Jacques/Arthur would like to see ...

Halitsky

9/21/12

One other "a prior" note re Jacques' and Arthur's devoutest hope ...

Halitsky

8/25/12

For multiple linear regressions, are definitions same for SlopeVar,
IntcptVar, and (Sl,Int)Covar???

Halitsky

8/26/12

Re: For multiple linear regressions, are definitions same for
SlopeVar, IntcptVar, and (Sl,Int)Covar???

Ray Koopman

8/26/12

For our multiple regression ,will SE's of coefficients (including
intercept) suffice for now?

Halitsky

8/26/12

As you can see from my offline emails with Ivo Welch, I CAN get the
covariance matrix that's required ...

Halitsky

8/27/12

Re: As you can see from my offline emails with Ivo Welch, I CAN get
the covariance matrix that's required ...

Ray Koopman

8/27/12

Re: As you can see from my offline emails with Ivo Welch, I CAN get
the covariance matrix that's required ...

Halitsky

8/27/12

So far so good - Ivo's coefficients are same as yours for your test data

Halitsky

8/28/12

Quick question re multiplying AX'y to get b.

Halitsky

8/28/12

Thanks for the cautionary note, but here's why there's no cause for
concern ...

Halitsky

8/31/12

Would more pairs of files help you determine whether you can
construct the desired test?

Halitsky

8/29/12

List of Descriptors for Forthcoming "Structural Parameters" Results Files

Halitsky

8/28/12

I've got v and C = vA. and they match yours !!!!!

Halitsky

7/25/12

Test post only to check available horizontal space ... please ignore

Halitsky

6/27/12

Prelim results for ln(c/u) on ln(c/L) for S63 computed for u_low,
u_high, and u_all

Halitsky

6/27/12

Re: Prelim results for ln(c/u) on ln(c/L) for S63 computed for u_low,
u_high, and u_all

Halitsky

6/22/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Halitsky

6/22/12

Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today

Halitsky

6/2/12

The expected frequency tables for S60, C537, S119, and C1058 are all
OK - I've double-checked them.

Halitsky

6/3/12

Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"

Ray Koopman

5/30/12

Please ignore 4 tables in last post - here are the tables WITHOUT
three clerical errors.

Halitsky

5/30/12

Re: Please ignore 4 tables in last post - here are the tables WITHOUT
three clerical errors.

Ray Koopman

5/30/12

Re: Please ignore 4 tables in last post - here are the tables WITHOUT
three clerical errors.

Halitsky

5/30/12

ln(c/u) on ln(c/L) may not be "weak" but rather 2-3 times stronger
than it should be for study group data.

Halitsky

5/26/12

Here are the t-test results for e, c, and u themselves (for a1 fold,
S63 and S60 groups)

Halitsky

5/26/12

Two questions re actual c,e,u, expected ln(c/u), ln(c/e), and actual
lnc/u, ln(c/e)

Halitsky

5/26/12

Re: Two questions re actual c,e,u, expected ln(c/u), ln(c/e), and
actual lnc/u, ln(c/e)

Ray Koopman

5/26/12

Re: Two questions re actual c,e,u, expected ln(c/u), ln(c/e), and
actual lnc/u, ln(c/e)

Halitsky

5/27/12

Re: Two questions re actual c,e,u, expected ln(c/u), ln(c/e), and
actual lnc/u, ln(c/e)

Ray Koopman

5/25/12

Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results

Halitsky

5/25/12

Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results

Halitsky

5/25/12

T-tests of ln(c/e), ln(c/u), ln(c/L), e, u, and c for STudy Groups
(63) and (60)

Halitsky

5/20/12

Re: Should I obtain "R" to do Bartlett's (or Fligner's)
homoscedasticity tests on the driver correlations?

Ray Koopman

5/20/12

Re: Should I obtain "R" to do Bartlett's (or Fligner's)
homoscedasticity tests on the driver correlations?

Halitsky

5/20/12

Re: Should I obtain "R" to do Bartlett's (or Fligner's)
homoscedasticity tests on the driver correlations?

Ray Koopman

5/20/12

Re: Should I obtain "R" to do Bartlett's (or Fligner's)
homoscedasticity tests on the driver correlations?

Halitsky

5/15/12

Re: Means and SD's for "u" (representation level) in control & study
groups for all six folds

Ray Koopman

5/15/12

Re: Means and SD's for "u" (representation level) in control & study
groups for all six folds

Halitsky