Date: Nov 26, 2012 12:40 AM
Author: Ray Koopman
Subject: Re: As per your suggestion in the other thread, scaled e on scaled u,<br> c, L

On Nov 25, 8:30 pm, djh <halitsk...@att.net> wrote:
> I'm sending you off-line 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 off-line 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.