|
|
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of the tables themselves, the ?x? has been replaced by a comma.)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 ?L-H? and ?H-L?
**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
|
|
