On Dec 14, 1:07 pm, djh <halitsk...@att.net> wrote: > In your post of 12/14 at227 pm, you wrote: > > ?So far the all the plots look pretty linear, with just a hint of > positive curvature, but it's hard to say because SEs are themselves > heteroscedastic.? > > The Axxxx SEplots I?m going to send at set 2 and set 3 may be relevant > to this matter, for the reason(s) below. > > As soon as I started the Axxxx SE plots for set 2 (none of which > you?ve yet received), I immediately saw something which you can see > for yourself by plotting the two tables at the end of this post, which > are for: > > a) N_1_a1_S (you already have the plot for this one) > b) N_2_a1_S (haven?t sent this one to you yet)
I'm sending you my plots offline. 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. Hoever, that could be just a sample-size artifact. What are you seeing?
