Date: Dec 13, 2012 7:27 PM
Author: Ray Koopman
Subject: Re: I think I may have found something relevant to A<br>	ubqe “het-ness” and heteroscedasticity

On Dec 13, 10:33 am, djh <halitsk...@att.net> wrote:
> I think I may have found something relevant to Aubqe ?het-ness? and
> heteroscedasticity
>
> If you:
>
> a) plot the two lines given by the first table below (call this the S-
> plot)
>
> b) plot the two lines given by the second table below (call this the C-
> plot)
>
> I THINK you?ll agree that the S-plot and C-plot must be adjudged as
> different by the IOT test. (I?ve sent you a PDF of the two plots
> offline so you can see if you?re looking at what I?m looking at.)
>
> If you do agree with this conclusion, I?ll explain what?s been
> plotted, since it may be relevant to your consideration of Aubqe ?het-
> ness? and heteroscedasticity.
>
> For S-Plot:
>
> Cell,N,R
>
> 1,0.004293565,0.000503944
> 2,0.009398,0.00118415
> 3,0.019790086,0.041027523
> 4,0.021645402,0.052112332
> 5,0.041148681,0.054021335
> 6,0.056848093,0.057693811
> 7,0.169920851,0.068659527
> 8,0.236373,0.083710757
> 9,0.248019846,0.094021303
> 10,0.277783068,0.130456898
> 11,0.281488299,0.21540961
> 12,0.287886,0.236780945
> 13,0.299769,0.236936513
> 14,0.299875026,0.269875322
> 15,0.360314613,0.294476424
> 16,0.370746358,0.315561395
> 17,0.406029587,0.319462902
> 18,0.43289,0.327971706
> 19,0.465398176,0.463861812
> 20,0.482382234,0.479255866
> 21,0.530897822,0.564392402
> 22,0.559333624,0.577382726
> 23,0.626424347,0.579430243
> 24,0.702399,0.588970805
> 25,0.741387901,0.61542756
> 26,0.768317356,0.629984706
> 27,0.820922877,0.698570658
> 28,0.831159936,0.719544247
> 29,0.832584062,0.732798731
> 30,0.88900441,0.813873971
> 31,0.893789589,0.883957837
> 32,0.894253162,0.888276157
> 33,0.935126553,0.888377668
> 34,0.977748076,0.917545651
> 35,0.980182674,0.977990461
> 36,0.984220184,0.980356048
>
> For C-plot:
>
> Cell,N,R
>
> 1,0.000147868,0.00011982
> 2,0.000235407,0.012214573
> 3,0.002576217,0.029133944
> 4,0.020854486,0.048936138
> 5,0.023919,0.05764761
> 6,0.041120964,0.05865896
> 7,0.042472596,0.064182305
> 8,0.059794,0.088376406
> 9,0.079939524,0.107473805
> 10,0.087268176,0.147682873
> 11,0.13125994,0.162392478
> 12,0.17489924,0.181759433
> 13,0.180724763,0.201847347
> 14,0.185042614,0.210439736
> 15,0.207785097,0.226305355
> 16,0.21197145,0.227038784
> 17,0.228176227,0.255699197
> 18,0.252242125,0.288864935
> 19,0.275296878,0.302035139
> 20,0.305134999,0.312164668
> 21,0.309388442,0.388447922
> 22,0.332112292,0.397416524
> 23,0.361024514,0.434182601
> 24,0.41780334,0.438280224
> 25,0.423432022,0.516128733
> 26,0.476818276,0.614130775
> 27,0.542145,0.675962212
> 28,0.559098289,0.689950901
> 29,0.581960315,0.735779895
> 30,0.619627105,0.778392333
> 31,0.646265173,0.800207872
> 32,0.74717756,0.870729822
> 33,0.757530416,0.911149831
> 34,0.884119,0.93512393
> 35,0.900867429,0.941162349
> 36,0.938430375,0.986071449


What are the 1..36? All the other values are monotone increasing.
Did they come that way, or did you sort them?

The best way to see the difference between the plots is to take cols
2 & 3 as x & y coordinates, then plot the points along with a line
from (0,0) to (1,1). The S-plot is mostly below the line. the C-plot
is mostly above. I'm not as struck by that difference as you seem to
be. Where did the numbers come from?