Date: Dec 1, 2012 2:41 AM
Author: Ray Koopman
Subject: Re: I’m glad the perfect m split legitimately sugg<br>	ests a subset effect; here’s why.

On Nov 30, 10:15 pm, djh <> wrote:
> (I) Further suggestive CI plot evidence for a subset effect.
> I?m glad you wrote:
> ?so it certainly looks like there's a subset effect.?
> because the postulation of such an effect is supported by additional
> CI plot evidence that I?ll get to in a moment.
> But first, I want to clarify what CI?s and slopes we?re talking about
> here.
> Denote the first of the three new reqressions by Ruq:
> Ruq = c on (u?, (u?)^2), where u?= u/(1+u)
> with average slope Auq = first derivative of the quadratic (as you
> defined it) and SE of average slope also as you defined it:
> sqrt[ var(a1) + 4*var(a2)*(mean_x)^2 + 4*cov(a1,a2)*mean_x ], with df
> = n-3. (Note that Ruq is always executed per length interval per fold
> per dicodon subset per dicodon set per ?method?, where ?method? is
> your term for N=nonrandom vs R=random.)

On Oct 18 @ 7:10 am, you wrote:
"Perhaps we could name the N/R dichotomy ?MoSS? for ?Method of
(Dicodon) Set Selection? so that R would become RMoSS meaning Random
Method of Set Selection and N would become NRMoS meaning NonRandom
Method of Set Selection."

On Nov 2 @ 12:50 am PDT, I used "method" but questioned the term.
"Per method" makes perfect sense if you take it ss short for
"per method of dicodon set selection", but if you prefer "per MoSS"
then fine, we can switch.

> Now define R?uq as the simple linear regression:
> R?uq = Auq on the index values 1-12 of our length intervals.

¿¿ R'uq = Auq ?? Why are you giving two names to the same thing?
I'm lost!