
Re: As per your suggestion in the other thread, scaled e on scaled u, c, L
Posted:
Nov 26, 2012 12:40 AM


On Nov 25, 8:30 pm, djh <halitsk...@att.net> wrote: > I'm sending you offline a PDF with the usual statistics plus line fit > plots and residual plots for a regression of the sort you suggested at > the end of the other thread: > > e on (u,c,L) > > where e,u,c, and L have all been scaled into [0,1] using the following > formula and intervals: > > x' = (x  x_min) / (x_max  x_min)
Any such linear rescaling has no effect on ordinary multiple regression. I suggested that rescaling only as a possible way of normalizing the data prior to the rotation/projection analyses described in your post of 11/15 @ 9:16pm.
> > e: [221.735, 308.65] > c: [1,252] > u: [.0079,36] > L: [2,253] > > I've also sent offline the raw and scaled values for u,e,c,L > (these are for all observations in a1_1_N_S, across all lengths). > > I don't know if the residual plots for scaled u and c are too > heteroscedastic to make the regression meaningful. > > And even if these two residual plots are sufficiently homoscedastic, > I don't know if you'll find the regression itself meaningful or > interesting. > > But I figured I would send it along for what it's worth, inasmuch as > scaled e varies directly with scaled u and c, which is what should be > the case.

