On Dec 14, 8:34 pm, Ray Koopman <koop...@sfu.ca> wrote: > On Dec 14, 5:26 pm, djh <halitsk...@att.net> wrote: >> Thanks for doing those two plots. >> >> You wrote: >> >> "The biggest difference I see is that the SE's in set 2 are more >> consistent than those in set 1, especially for L > 90 or so. However, >> that could be just a sample-size artifact." >> >> Yes - we agree on the difference we're seeing. >> >> And I'm therefore hoping you'll tell me there's a way to reliably >> decide the sample-size artifact question. >> >> Is there? > > Multiply each SE by the square root of its n, then plot. > Also, you might try plotting the points without connecting them, > which will make it easier to see holes.
You should also plot SEP against L. (Actually, those should have been the first plots you did.)
