
I'm sorry Ray  excitement (probably unwarranted) has disconnected my brain from my fingers ...
Posted:
Dec 7, 2012 3:07 PM


I deeply apologize for the fact that excitement about what MAY be emerging has completely disconnected my brain from my fingers.
Below are the two previous tables with rows correctly labelled. (I?ve kept the ?x? in the expression ?subset x MoSS  (Fold,Set,Len) (all,all,all), since you've indicated it's OK there. But in the rows of the tables themselves, the ?x? has been replaced by a comma.)
As before, the point (if in fact there IS one ... you will have to decide) is that N,S has the lowest p and SE for u*E in c on (e,u,u*e), but not for u^2 in c on (e,u,u*e,u^2).
Finally, whenever you?re ready, I?m ready to respond to the more general question you posed earlier by explaining what ?LH? and ?HL? **mean** scientifically (using reasoning based on the behavior of the average slope Auq of c on (u,u^2) and the covariance AubC of e and u in c on (u,e,u*e).
Corrected tables:
SE and p values for u^2 in regression c on (e,u,u*e,u^2) for each value of subset x MoSS  (Fold,Set,Len) = (all,all,all)  Subset x u^2 MoSS SE p N,S 35.17 0.457 N,C 38.19 0.416 R,S 36.88 0.434 R,C 34.69 0.438 
SE and p values for u*e in the regression c on (u,e,u*e), for each value of subset x MoSS  (Fold,Set,Len) = (all,all,all)  Subset x u*e MoSS SE p N,S 0.491 0.454 N,C 0.602 0.462 R,S 0.547 0.463 R,C 0.512 0.478

