```Date: Dec 7, 2012 2:25 PM
Author: Ray Koopman
Subject: Re: SE's and p's for four subset x MoSS roll-ups of u*e coefficient<br> in c = (u,e,u*e)

On Dec 7, 9:27 am, djh <halitsk...@att.net> wrote:> Here are the average 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> Method    SE     p>> SxN     0.491  0.454> SxC     0.602  0.462> SxR     0.547  0.463> SxC     0.512  0.478> --------------------I'm confused by the "subset x Method" labels in this and your twoprevious posts. If the Subsets are S and C, and the Methods are Nand R, then the labels should be some permutation of (S,N), (S,R),(C,N), and (C,R).Also, as I've mentioned before, the "x" is usually used to refer tofactors -- e.g., Subset x Method -- not particular combinations oflevels of the factors. The "x" denotes the Cartesian product of thetwo factors; each combination is an ordered pair, conceptually thesame as ordinary (x,y) coordinates. (The parentheses can be dropped,as befits the context.)>> Unlike the previous case of u^2 in c on (e,u,u*e,u^2), SxN DOES have> the lowest SE and the lowest p.>> Now, I'm sure you'll say the differences are meaningless.>> But there has to be some reason why the average slope Aube of the e> coefficient in c = (u,e,u*e) is giving us the striking "het" result at> method = N and sets 1, 3:>>            a1   a3   b1  b47   c1   c2>           C S  C S  c S  c S  C S  C S  "Het">> N1 Aube   H H  L L  H H  H H  L L  L L    0> N3 Aube   L L  H H  L L  H H  H H  L L    0
```