Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.stat.math.independent

Topic: The same four proportional weighting factors work for each
00/01/10/11 when 0.25 is subtracted from each !!!

Replies: 506   Last Post: Nov 20, 2012 9:21 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Bruce Weaver

Posts: 737
Registered: 12/18/04
Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are encouraging
(I think)

Posted: Sep 13, 2012 3:55 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 13/09/2012 2:49 PM, Ray Koopman wrote:
> On Sep 13, 8:22 am, Bruce Weaver <bwea...@lakeheadu.ca> wrote:
>> On 12/09/2012 7:42 PM, Ray Koopman wrote:
>>

>>> There are problems with the confidence intervals.
>>> For a 95% CI you want c = .95, not .05 .
>>> t[1804, .95] = 1.96127985848 .
>>> CI = {-0.0956913, -0.0444736}
>>>
>>> But that's a single CI. If you have n independent CIs, and you want
>>> to be 95% confident that they all contain their respective parameters
>>> -- i.e., that all n parameters are in the n-dimensional box whose
>>> corners are the endpoints of the CIs -- then you must use .95^(1/n),
>>> not .95, as the c for each individual CI.

>>
>> Hi Ray. If I follow, this correction is the flip-side, if you will,
>> of the Bonferroni correction (to alpha) for multiple tests, correct?
>> I ask, because a quick Google search suggested that there is another
>> procedure for "simultaneous confidence intervals" that is analogous
>> to Scheffé's (very conservative) multiple comparison procedure.

>
> It's not exactly the flip-side of the Bonferroni correction, which
> would be 1-(1-c)/n. c^(1/n) works because the all the estimates are
> independent, whereas Bonferroni is more general and therefore gives
> slightly wider intervals.
>
> The estimates are heteroscedastic. We have multiple independent t's
> with different df's, so I'm not sure how a Scheffe-like procedure
> would work. An ellipsoid-like region would be smaller than an n-box,
> but would be impossible to interpret, so I'm open to suggestions.
>



Oh, right. Thanks for clarifying, Ray.

--
Bruce Weaver
bweaver@lakeheadu.ca
http://sites.google.com/a/lakeheadu.ca/bweaver/Home
"When all else fails, RTFM."


Date Subject Author
5/14/12
Read The same four proportional weighting factors work for each
00/01/10/11 when 0.25 is subtracted from each !!!
Halitsky
5/14/12
Read Re: The same four proportional weighting factors work for each
00/01/10/11 when 0.25 is subtracted from each !!!
Ray Koopman
5/15/12
Read Re: The same four proportional weighting factors work for each
00/01/10/11 when 0.25 is subtracted from each !!!
Halitsky
5/15/12
Read Re: The same four proportional weighting factors work for each
00/01/10/11 when 0.25 is subtracted from each !!!
Ray Koopman
5/15/12
Read Re: The same four proportional weighting factors work for each
00/01/10/11 when 0.25 is subtracted from each !!!
Halitsky
5/15/12
Read Re: The same four proportional weighting factors work for each
00/01/10/11 when 0.25 is subtracted from each !!!
Ray Koopman
5/15/12
Read Re: The same four proportional weighting factors work for each
00/01/10/11 when 0.25 is subtracted from each !!!
Halitsky
5/16/12
Read Re: The same four proportional weighting factors work for each
00/01/10/11 when 0.25 is subtracted from each !!!
Ray Koopman
5/16/12
Read Is now also the time to try and equalize study and control group
sample sizes ??
Halitsky
5/16/12
Read Can you crunch this table to check for any issue which might affect
our "c/L" ratio?
Halitsky
5/18/12
Read Re: Can you crunch this table to check for any issue which might
affect our "c/L" ratio?
Ray Koopman
5/18/12
Read Re: Can you crunch this table to check for any issue which might
affect our "c/L" ratio?
Halitsky
5/18/12
Read Re: Can you crunch this table to check for any issue which might
affect our "c/L" ratio?
Ray Koopman
5/18/12
Read Re: Can you crunch this table to check for any issue which might
affect our "c/L" ratio?
Halitsky
5/19/12
Read Should I obtain "R" to do Bartlett's (or Fligner's) homoscedasticity
tests on the driver correlations?
Halitsky
5/19/12
Read Update re homoscedasticity testing: my wife can do them in MiniTab ....
Halitsky
5/20/12
Read 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization
Halitsky
5/20/12
Read Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization
Ray Koopman
5/20/12
Read Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization
Halitsky
5/21/12
Read Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization
Ray Koopman
5/21/12
Read Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization
Halitsky
5/21/12
Read Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization
Ray Koopman
5/21/12
Read Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization
Halitsky
5/22/12
Read Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization
Ray Koopman
5/22/12
Read Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization
Halitsky
5/24/12
Read Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization
Ray Koopman
5/24/12
Read Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization
Halitsky
5/24/12
Read Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization
Halitsky
5/22/12
Read Re: 1) Sample "jackknife" table 2) Requisite n's 3) linear regression
comparisons; 4) sample equalization
Ray Koopman
5/24/12
Read New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study group"
t-test results
Halitsky
5/25/12
Read Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results
Ray Koopman
5/25/12
Read Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results
Halitsky
5/25/12
Read Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results
Ray Koopman
5/26/12
Read Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results
Halitsky
5/28/12
Read Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results
Ray Koopman
5/28/12
Read Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results
Halitsky
5/28/12
Read Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results
Halitsky
5/28/12
Read Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results
Ray Koopman
5/28/12
Read Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results
Halitsky
5/28/12
Read Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results
Ray Koopman
5/29/12
Read Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results
Ray Koopman
5/29/12
Read Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results
Halitsky
5/29/12
Read Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results
Halitsky
5/30/12
Read Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results
Ray Koopman
5/30/12
Read The other matters you raised in your post last night
Halitsky
5/30/12
Read Oh! - you didn't mean a MANOVA - you meant a multiple linear
regression of one DV on 2 IV's. right?
Halitsky
5/30/12
Read Re: Oh! - you didn't mean a MANOVA - you meant a multiple linear
regression of one DV on 2 IV's. right?
Ray Koopman
5/29/12
Read New question re behavior of u and x2 driver when data selected for u
> 0 vs u > 1
Halitsky
5/30/12
Read Re: New question re behavior of u and x2 driver when data selected
for u > 0 vs u > 1
Ray Koopman
5/30/12
Read kclas/mols is the unit of "e", not u
Halitsky
5/30/12
Read Re: kclas/mols is the unit of "e", not u
Ray Koopman
5/30/12
Read Comparison of avg ln(c/u) on ln(c/L) coefficients to average "UCP's"
(u-computation probabilities)
Halitsky
5/30/12
Read Re: Comparison of avg ln(c/u) on ln(c/L) coefficients to average
"UCP's" (u-computation probabilities)
Ray Koopman
5/30/12
Read The relationship of UCP's to "u"
Halitsky
5/30/12
Read Naturally, a stupid minor error in my above post re UCP and u
Halitsky
5/30/12
Read Intuitive vs actual algorithm for computing u
Halitsky
5/31/12
Read Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"
Ray Koopman
5/31/12
Read How to understand L, c, and u in terms of our allegory
Halitsky
5/31/12
Read Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"
Ray Koopman
5/31/12
Read Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"
Halitsky
5/31/12
Read Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"
Halitsky
6/1/12
Read Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"
Ray Koopman
6/1/12
Read Where the "63" came from
Halitsky
6/1/12
Read Re: Where the "63" came from
Ray Koopman
6/1/12
Read Re: Where the "63" came from
Halitsky
6/1/12
Read Re: Where the "63" came from
Halitsky
6/2/12
Read Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"
Ray Koopman
6/2/12
Read Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"
Halitsky
6/2/12
Read Your assessment of current method of computing "u" relative to a
given group, e.g. S63
Halitsky
6/2/12
Read Re: Your assessment of current method of computing "u" relative to a
given group, e.g. S63
Ray Koopman
6/2/12
Read Re: Your assessment of current method of computing "u" relative to a
given group, e.g. S63
Halitsky
6/2/12
Read Correction to presentation of "u" computation method
Halitsky
6/3/12
Read Re: Correction to presentation of "u" computation method
Ray Koopman
6/4/12
Read Re: Correction to presentation of "u" computation method
Ray Koopman
6/4/12
Read Re: Correction to presentation of "u" computation method
Halitsky
6/4/12
Read Clarification of the term "combined probability" in assertion (I) in
previous message
Halitsky
6/4/12
Read Please hold the fort ... I think I now see what you're saying re "u"
Halitsky
6/4/12
Read OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate
whether it correctly computes "u"
Halitsky
6/4/12
Read Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate
whether it correctly computes "u"
Ray Koopman
6/5/12
Read Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate
whether it correctly computes "u"
Ray Koopman
6/5/12
Read Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate
whether it correctly computes "u"
Halitsky
6/6/12
Read Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate
whether it correctly computes "u"
Ray Koopman
6/6/12
Read Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate
whether it correctly computes "u"
Ray Koopman
6/6/12
Read Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate
whether it correctly computes "u"
Halitsky
6/6/12
Read But I guess the u=0 problem would go away if we used u/c, e/c, and
L/c instead ....
Halitsky
6/6/12
Read Also, "e" has no meaning for segments in which u = 0 because N-yes = 0.
Halitsky
6/8/12
Read Correction of an egregiously bad "simplifying" assumption regarding
"c" ...
Halitsky
6/8/12
Read Re: Correction of an egregiously bad "simplifying" assumption
regarding "c" ...
Halitsky
6/9/12
Read Re: Correction of an egregiously bad "simplifying" assumption
regarding "c" ...
Ray Koopman
6/9/12
Read It's "rubber meets the road" time, Ray .... are these two regressions
sufficiently "different" ?
Halitsky
6/10/12
Read Restatement (improved) of previous correlation results after two
dicodon/UCP table errors corrected
Halitsky
6/11/12
Read Re: Restatement (improved) of previous correlation results after two
dicodon/UCP table errors corrected
Ray Koopman
6/11/12
Read Re: Restatement (improved) of previous correlation results after two
dicodon/UCP table errors corrected
Halitsky
6/11/12
Read Re: Restatement (improved) of previous correlation results after two
dicodon/UCP table errors corrected
Ray Koopman
6/11/12
Read Re: Restatement (improved) of previous correlation results after two
dicodon/UCP table errors corrected
Halitsky
6/11/12
Read Re: Restatement (improved) of previous correlation results after two
dicodon/UCP table errors corrected
Ray Koopman
6/11/12
Read 1) thanks for the additional summary stats; 2) next critical question
requiring your evaluation
Halitsky
6/12/12
Read Re: 1) thanks for the additional summary stats; 2) next critical
question requiring your evaluation
Ray Koopman
6/12/12
Read Re: 1) thanks for the additional summary stats; 2) next critical
question requiring your evaluation
Halitsky
6/13/12
Read Re: 1) thanks for the additional summary stats; 2) next critical
question requiring your evaluation
Ray Koopman
6/13/12
Read Re: 1) thanks for the additional summary stats; 2) next critical
question requiring your evaluation
Halitsky
6/14/12
Read New question: could u on c*L (no logs) be logarithmic (over ALL
length intervals)
gimpeltf@hotmail.com
6/15/12
Read Re: New question: could u on c*L (no logs) be logarithmic (over ALL
length intervals)
Ray Koopman
6/15/12
Read Re: New question: could u on c*L (no logs) be logarithmic (over ALL
length intervals)
Halitsky
6/15/12
Read Re: New question: could u on c*L (no logs) be logarithmic (over ALL
length intervals)
gimpeltf@hotmail.com
6/15/12
Read Re: New question: could u on c*L (no logs) be logarithmic (over ALL
length intervals)
Halitsky
6/15/12
Read Critical question re proper way to argue from slope CI
overlaps/non-overlaps among S63, S63R, and C711
Halitsky
6/16/12
Read Re: Critical question re proper way to argue from slope CI
overlaps/non-overlaps among S63, S63R, and C711
Ray Koopman
6/16/12
Read How stupid am I? Of course I had the Y's and the N's reversed ...
Halitsky
6/16/12
Read Re: How stupid am I? Of course I had the Y's and the N's reversed ...
Ray Koopman
6/16/12
Read Re: How stupid am I? Of course I had the Y's and the N's reversed ...
Halitsky
6/16/12
Read Correction: there is a slope CI overlap for a1 len 25 ln(c/u) on
ln(c/L) for S63 vs S63R
Halitsky
6/18/12
Read Current Status and New Question re ln(c/u) on ln(c/L)
Halitsky
6/18/12
Read Re: Current Status and New Question re ln(c/u) on ln(c/L)
Halitsky
6/18/12
Read Re: Current Status and New Question re ln(c/u) on ln(c/L)
Halitsky
6/19/12
Read All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Halitsky
6/19/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Halitsky
6/19/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Halitsky
6/22/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Ray Koopman
6/22/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Ray Koopman
6/22/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Ray Koopman
6/22/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Halitsky
6/23/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Ray Koopman
6/23/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Halitsky
6/24/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Ray Koopman
6/24/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Halitsky
6/24/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Ray Koopman
6/24/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Halitsky
6/25/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Ray Koopman
6/25/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Halitsky
6/25/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Halitsky
6/26/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Ray Koopman
6/26/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Halitsky
6/26/12
Read I see what you're saying now about the length intervals - it's MY
code that has shifted the intervals down !
Halitsky
6/26/12
Read Since I'm rerunning a1 and a3, do you have any thoughts on how I
should run ln(c/u) on ln(c/L) ?
Halitsky
6/26/12
Read I'm taking a day or two to automate some error-prone manual
processing steps
Halitsky
6/27/12
Read Would it be possible for me to do the "set-wise" regression
significance comparisons on my side?
Halitsky
6/27/12
Read Re: Would it be possible for me to do the "set-wise" regression
significance comparisons on my side?
Ray Koopman
6/27/12
Read Re: Would it be possible for me to do the "set-wise" regression
significance comparisons on my side?
Halitsky
6/27/12
Read One dumb question (just this one I hope) about getting p's from t's ...
Halitsky
6/27/12
Read Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK to
use here?
Halitsky
6/28/12
Read Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK
to use here?
Ray Koopman
6/28/12
Read Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK to use here?
Gaj Vidmar
6/28/12
Read Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK
to use here?
Halitsky
6/28/12
Read Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK
to use here?
Halitsky
6/28/12
Read Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be
OK to use here?
Art Kendall
6/28/12
Read Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK
to use here?
Halitsky
6/28/12
Read Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be
OK to use here?
Art Kendall
6/28/12
Read Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK
to use here?
Halitsky
6/28/12
Read Permissible comparative sizes of N's for sets being compared by your
t-test (and correction) algorithm
Halitsky
6/28/12
Read Re: Permissible comparative sizes of N's for sets being compared by
your t-test (and correction) algorithm
Ray Koopman
6/28/12
Read Next question: df's at each "layer" in a "Russian egg" significance
testing protocol
Halitsky
6/29/12
Read Re: Next question: df's at each "layer" in a "Russian egg"
significance testing protocol
Ray Koopman
6/29/12
Read Re: Next question: df's at each "layer" in a "Russian egg"
significance testing protocol
Halitsky
6/29/12
Read Typo in previous post - test-count = 24, not 48
Halitsky
6/30/12
Read Re: Next question: df's at each "layer" in a "Russian egg"
significance testing protocol
Ray Koopman
6/30/12
Read Re: Next question: df's at each "layer" in a "Russian egg"
significance testing protocol
Halitsky
6/30/12
Read But we COULD try t-testing corresponding sets of residuals per len
interval, if you think it valid to do so
Halitsky
7/1/12
Read Could you double-check me on the "custom t-test" calculation just
this once before you leave Tue?
Halitsky
7/2/12
Read Re: Could you double-check me on the "custom t-test" calculation just
this once before you leave Tue?
Ray Koopman
7/2/12
Read Re: Could you double-check me on the "custom t-test" calculation just
this once before you leave Tue?
Halitsky
7/2/12
Read I'm now a "Bonferroni-believer"!!! (At least till the results go the
WRONG way ...)
Halitsky
7/2/12
Read Re: I'm now a "Bonferroni-believer"!!! (At least till the results go
the WRONG way ...)
Halitsky
7/2/12
Read Bonferroni calculation results for ln(c/e) on ln(c/L) for Family 1
Halitsky
7/2/12
Read Re: I'm now a "Bonferroni-believer"!!! (At least till the results go
the WRONG way ...)
Ray Koopman
7/2/12
Read Corrected Bonferroni data for ln(ce) on ln(c/L) for Family 1, and 1
question on "random outliers"
Halitsky
7/4/12
Read Full results of test-suite on fold a1 AFTER intra-family Bonferroni correction
gimpeltf@hotmail.com
7/11/12
Read Post of offline email (7/11) re a1/a3/b1 results, for later
referenceability if needed
Halitsky
7/11/12
Read Re: Post of offline email (7/11) re a1/a3/b1 results, for later
referenceability if needed
Halitsky
7/17/12
Read Results of Bonferroni-corrected significance testing across all six
folds now complete
Halitsky
7/19/12
Read Quick specific question about bringing variance of a set of
observations to an expected value.
Halitsky
7/19/12
Read Re: Quick specific question about bringing variance of a set of
observations to an expected value.
Ray Koopman
7/19/12
Read Re: Quick specific question about bringing variance of a set of
observations to an expected value.
Halitsky
7/23/12
Read Can your custom t-test be run on means and variances as well as on
slopes and SE's or intercepts and SE's ?
Halitsky
7/23/12
Read Same question as last post, but with variance and sd of residuals
instead of mean and var ....
Halitsky
7/23/12
Read Example of variance and sd of residuals decreasing across length
intervals 1 to 12
Halitsky
7/23/12
Read Re: Example of variance and sd of residuals decreasing across length
intervals 1 to 12
Halitsky
7/23/12
Read Re: Can your custom t-test be run on means and variances as well as
on slopes and SE's or intercepts and SE's ?
Ray Koopman
7/23/12
Read OK - then how about this alternative approach to patterns of variances?
Halitsky
7/24/12
Read Re: OK - then how about this alternative approach to patterns of variances?
Ray Koopman
7/24/12
Read Re: OK - then how about this alternative approach to patterns of variances?
Ray Koopman
7/24/12
Read Thanks! but a quick question about thee construct "adjusted SD" ...
Halitsky
7/24/12
Read Oh wait a second ... by "adjusted SD" do you simply mean the one with
N-1 rather than N in the denominator?
Halitsky
7/24/12
Read Re: Oh wait a second ... by "adjusted SD" do you simply mean the one
with N-1 rather than N in the denominator?
Ray Koopman
7/24/12
Read So N-2 instead of N-1 ???? (sorry to be a nuisance .)
Halitsky
7/24/12
Read Re: So N-2 instead of N-1 ???? (sorry to be a nuisance .)
Ray Koopman
7/24/12
Read Re: So N-2 instead of N-1 ???? (sorry to be a nuisance .)
Halitsky
7/24/12
Read is there a way you "adjudicate" a case like this (0.00002 slope CI
overlap and 0.00017 intcpt CI overlap)?
Halitsky
7/24/12
Read Re: is there a way you "adjudicate" a case like this (0.00002 slope
CI overlap and 0.00017 intcpt CI overlap)?
Ray Koopman
7/24/12
Read Re: is there a way you "adjudicate" a case like this (0.00002 slope
CI overlap and 0.00017 intcpt CI overlap)?
Halitsky
7/24/12
Read Re: is there a way you "adjudicate" a case like this (0.00002 slope
CI overlap and 0.00017 intcpt CI overlap)?
Ray Koopman
7/25/12
Read Results of fold-discrimination analysis via adjusted SD analysis
Halitsky
7/26/12
Read A follow-up note about fold c1 in fold-discrimination matrix
presented in last post
Halitsky
7/26/12
Read Re: A follow-up note about fold c1 in fold-discrimination matrix
presented in last post
Ray Koopman
7/26/12
Read Re: A follow-up note about fold c1 in fold-discrimination matrix
presented in last post
Halitsky
7/27/12
Read Re: A follow-up note about fold c1 in fold-discrimination matrix
presented in last post
Ray Koopman
7/27/12
Read Re: A follow-up note about fold c1 in fold-discrimination matrix
presented in last post
Halitsky
7/27/12
Read Results of “Cross-Filtering” Approach Suggested
in Previous Post
Halitsky
7/27/12
Read Test post to check line size - please ignore
Halitsky
8/1/12
Read If I'd only thought more carefully about a suggestion you made 2
months ago ....
Halitsky
8/2/12
Read Two really quick questions about Bonferroni corrections
Halitsky
8/2/12
Read Re: Two really quick questions about Bonferroni corrections
Ray Koopman
8/2/12
Read Re: Two really quick questions about Bonferroni corrections
Halitsky
8/2/12
Read Re: Two really quick questions about Bonferroni corrections
Richard Ulrich
8/3/12
Read Re: Two really quick questions about Bonferroni corrections
Halitsky
8/3/12
Read QUICK question about whether a certain result is/isn
’t sample-size independent
Halitsky
8/5/12
Read I'm proceeding without your answer to my last question, BUT ...
Halitsky
8/5/12
Read Re: I'm proceeding without your answer to my last question, BUT ...
Ray Koopman
8/5/12
Read Re: I'm proceeding without your answer to my last question, BUT ...
Halitsky
8/5/12
Read Example tabulation of N's and QUICK question re a possible sampling
protocol ...
Halitsky
8/5/12
Read PS - I think you suggested a protocol like the above some time ago ...
Halitsky
8/7/12
Read Example of Bonferroni ranking (presumably) independent of sample size
Halitsky
8/15/12
Read Re: Example tabulation of N's and QUICK question re a possible
sampling protocol ...
Ray Koopman
8/15/12
Read Before I go to bootstrapping, could you evaluate one last simple proposal?
Halitsky
8/15/12
Read Re: Before I go to bootstrapping, could you evaluate one last simple proposal?
Ray Koopman
8/15/12
Read OOPS! But is there another way to test the two sets of eigenvalues ?????
Halitsky
8/16/12
Read Re: OOPS! But is there another way to test the two sets of
eigenvalues ?????
Ray Koopman
8/16/12
Read OK - it looks like we can wrap this thread up ...
Halitsky
8/8/12
Read Re: QUICK question about whether a certain result is
/isn’t sample-size independent
Ray Koopman
8/8/12
Read When you “return”, please note the LATEST propos
ed design in my posts of 8/5@720&738 and 8/7@731
Halitsky
8/15/12
Read Re: When you “return”, please note the LATEST pr
oposed design in my posts of 8/5@720&738 and 8/7@731
Ray Koopman
8/15/12
Read My question was whether the intercept of x1 on x2,x3 is common to
BOTH regression lines of this multiple regression.
Halitsky
8/15/12
Read Re: My question was whether the intercept of x1 on x2,x3 is common to
BOTH regression lines of this multiple regression.
Ray Koopman
8/15/12
Read My problem is understanding the single intercept that Excel reports
for x1 on (x2,x3)
Halitsky
8/15/12
Read Re: My problem is understanding the single intercept that Excel
reports for x1 on (x2,x3)
Ray Koopman
8/15/12
Read Re: My problem is understanding the single intercept that Excel
reports for x1 on (x2,x3)
Halitsky
8/13/12
Read Re: QUICK question about whether a certain result is
/isn’t sample-size independent
Ray Koopman
8/13/12
Read Re: QUICK question about whether a certain result is
/isn’t sample-size independent
Halitsky
8/22/12
Read Would you have time to devise the test for comparing a simple and a
multiple regression?
Halitsky
8/23/12
Read Re: Would you have time to devise the test for comparing a simple and
a multiple regression?
Ray Koopman
8/23/12
Read We may be talking at cross-purposes - I'm not sure ...
Halitsky
8/24/12
Read Re: We may be talking at cross-purposes - I'm not sure ...
Ray Koopman
8/25/12
Read I trust your ability to see statistical clarity through the messiness
Halitsky
8/31/12
Read Re: I trust your ability to see statistical clarity through the messiness
Ray Koopman
8/31/12
Read Thanks for characterizing the nature of the d.v to look for ...
Halitsky
8/31/12
Read Correction of two typo's in prior post
Halitsky
9/3/12
Read Re: Thanks for characterizing the nature of the d.v to look for ...
Ray Koopman
9/3/12
Read If the results herein are technically legit, then you're easy a
genius, or very very experienced, or both.
Halitsky
9/4/12
Read Re: If the results herein are technically legit, then you're easy a
genius, or very very experienced, or both.
Ray Koopman
9/4/12
Read Re: If the results herein are technically legit, then you're easy a
genius, or very very experienced, or both.
Halitsky
9/5/12
Read Re: If the results herein are technically legit, then you're easy a
genius, or very very experienced, or both.
Ray Koopman
9/5/12
Read Sorry - I misunderstood your term "error variances" in your post of 8/24@823.
Halitsky
9/5/12
Read A technical problem with Anderson's LineFit module is what confused
me about the "variances"
Halitsky
9/5/12
Read Can N-related loss of confidence be quantified for each result of
your original custom heteroscedastic T?
Halitsky
9/6/12
Read Re: Can N-related loss of confidence be quantified for each result of
your original custom heteroscedastic T?
Ray Koopman
9/6/12
Read Re: Can N-related loss of confidence be quantified for each result of
your original custom heteroscedastic T?
Halitsky
9/6/12
Read Two more follow-on questions to the two I just asked in my last post
of 9/6@5:36 am
Halitsky
9/6/12
Read PS - Our control set expansion from 1 to 3 is not only scientifically
justifiable, but scientifically obligatory ....
gimpeltf@hotmail.com
9/6/12
Read Re: PS - Our control set expansion from 1 to 3 is not only
scientifically justifiable, but scientifically obligatory ....
Ray Koopman
9/6/12
Read Sorry for the obscure presentation of the sets - here's a clear "laydown"
Halitsky
9/9/12
Read New example summary and detail files
Halitsky
9/9/12
Read Re: New example summary and detail files
Ray Koopman
9/9/12
Read Re: New example summary and detail files
Halitsky
9/10/12
Read Re: New example summary and detail files
Ray Koopman
9/10/12
Read Thanks... three questions re your last post (quickly answerable, I
hope ...)
Halitsky
9/11/12
Read Re: Thanks... three questions re your last post (quickly answerable,
I hope ...)
Ray Koopman
9/11/12
Read Thanks (correction of variance and CIs of slope differences)
Halitsky
9/11/12
Read Could you check (and explain) this “negative t”
case?
Halitsky
9/11/12
Read Re: Could you check (and explain) this “negative t
” case?
Ray Koopman
9/11/12
Read Re: Could you check (and explain) this “negative t
” case?
Halitsky
9/9/12
Read Custom heteroscedastic test is working in Perl but with integer "ft"
and 6 decimal places for returned p;
Halitsky
9/11/12
Read Re: Custom heteroscedastic test is working in Perl but with integer
"ft" and 6 decimal places for returned p;
Ray Koopman
9/11/12
Read Yes - the opensource lib of Perl math modules does have a betainc ...
Halitsky
9/11/12
Read Re: Yes - the opensource lib of Perl math modules does have a betainc ...
Ray Koopman
9/11/12
Read Re: Yes - the opensource lib of Perl math modules does have a betainc ...
Halitsky
9/12/12
Read If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are encouraging
(I think)
Halitsky
9/12/12
Read Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are
encouraging (I think)
Ray Koopman
9/12/12
Read Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are
encouraging (I think)
Halitsky
9/13/12
Read Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are
encouraging (I think)
Ray Koopman
9/13/12
Read But 1.6457 is NOT the value you want , correct ? (Because Excel
T.INV.T returns your 1.96127986 )
Halitsky
9/13/12
Read Re: But 1.6457 is NOT the value you want , correct ? (Because Excel
T.INV.T returns your 1.96127986 )
Ray Koopman
9/13/12
Read Yes - you're correct! - Even for the "grown-up" inverse t, I have to
give it 1 minus HALF of (1 minus desired CI)
Halitsky
9/13/12
Read Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are encouraging
(I think)
Bruce Weaver
9/13/12
Read Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are
encouraging (I think)
Ray Koopman
9/13/12
Read Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are encouraging
(I think)
Bruce Weaver
9/13/12
Read Which do YOU think are the "n independent parameters" for the
multiple CI evaluation?
Halitsky
9/14/12
Read Re: Which do YOU think are the "n independent parameters" for the
multiple CI evaluation?
Ray Koopman
9/14/12
Read OK. Then seven separate analyes with n = 12 for the ".95^(1/n)" CIs.
Halitsky
9/14/12
Read Re: OK. Then seven separate analyes with n = 12 for the ".95^(1/n)" CIs.
Ray Koopman
9/14/12
Read Re: OK. Then seven separate analyes with n = 12 for the ".95^(1/n)" CIs.
Halitsky
9/14/12
Read Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"
Halitsky
9/14/12
Read Re: Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"
Ray Koopman
9/14/12
Read Re: Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"
Halitsky
9/15/12
Read Re: Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"
Ray Koopman
9/15/12
Read Re: Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"
Ray Koopman
9/15/12
Read Yes - your last instructions give me same tCI's as yours - sorry for
my confusion
Halitsky
9/15/12
Read Re: Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"
Ray Koopman
9/15/12
Read k-2 for Re, Ru coeff's vs k-3 for Reu coeffs
Halitsky
9/15/12
Read k = 3 changes df from ~1804 to ~1785 for the "euSu" coefficient
Halitsky
9/15/12
Read Am sending a zip file with complete CI results for a1 fold across all
cells of the design ...
Halitsky
9/15/12
Read Had you already looked at the data or did you simply have a great
experience-based hunch?
Halitsky
9/15/12
Read CI Partition analysis for all seven co-efficients (a1 fold only)
Halitsky
9/17/12
Read I've got the CI data for the other 5 folds, but don't want to post
them if the "thirds" approach is wrong ...
Halitsky
9/20/12
Read Re: I've got the CI data for the other 5 folds, but don't want to
post them if the "thirds" approach is wrong ...
Ray Koopman
9/20/12
Read 1) Thanks for the algorithm! 2) your initial a1 plot should please
both JRF and AML
Halitsky
9/20/12
Read Since your plot was for the eI coefficient, my previous comments were
relative only to THAT coefficient
Halitsky
9/21/12
Read Here are the plots for all 7 coeff's for the a1 fold, along with some comments/questions
Halitsky
9/21/12
Read Re: Here are the plots for all 7 coeff's for the a1 fold, along with
some comments/questions
Ray Koopman
9/21/12
Read CI plots for a3 fold
Halitsky
9/21/12
Read CI plots for b1 fold
Halitsky
9/21/12
Read CI plots for b47 fold
Halitsky
9/21/12
Read CI plots for c1 fold
Halitsky
9/21/12
Read CI plots for c2 fold
Halitsky
9/22/12
Read Tabulation of S:C cell pairs which correlate with non-overlapping CI's
Halitsky
9/23/12
Read Re: Tabulation of S:C cell pairs which correlate with non-overlapping CI's
Ray Koopman
9/23/12
Read OK - then here are four specific questions involving patterns (not
counts) of significant results
Halitsky
9/23/12
Read Please discard all posted CI results!! My computation of LL and HH
was wrong !
Halitsky
9/23/12
Read Re: Please discard all posted CI results!! My computation of LL and
HH was wrong !
Ray Koopman
9/23/12
Read Thanks for that clarification: will recompute with 72 CI's per plot
and (LL,HH) per each 72
Halitsky
9/23/12
Read I've sent you the CI plots per coefficient, and am now ready to throw
in the towel
Halitsky
9/24/12
Read Re: I've sent you the CI plots per coefficient, and am now ready to
throw in the towel
Ray Koopman
9/24/12
Read Re: I've sent you the CI plots per coefficient, and am now ready to
throw in the towel
Halitsky
9/24/12
Read Please review the eS, eI, and euI plots that I've sent you offline
for the "uA" design (multiplicity = 36)
Halitsky
9/25/12
Read Re: Please review the eS, eI, and euI plots that I've sent you
offline for the "uA" design (multiplicity = 36)
Ray Koopman
9/25/12
Read Thanks for taking a look at the uA plots; please permit some
questions about the custom t-test itself
Halitsky
9/25/12
Read one more question (sorry!): can N be validly regressed on (e,u,L)?
Halitsky
9/27/12
Read Re: one more question (sorry!): can N be validly regressed on (e,u,L)?
Ray Koopman
9/27/12
Read Re: Thanks for taking a look at the uA plots; please permit some
questions about the custom t-test itself
Ray Koopman
9/27/12
Read OK, then please do NOT misinterpret my motivation for asking this
next question ....
Halitsky
9/28/12
Read Re: OK, then please do NOT misinterpret my motivation for asking this
next question ....
Ray Koopman
9/28/12
Read Re: OK, then please do NOT misinterpret my motivation for asking this
next question ....
Halitsky
9/29/12
Read When a small set of p's passes the IOTT, is a Bonferroni correction
still required?
Halitsky
9/30/12
Read Can the argument from means be tightened by t-testin
g means “across N, R” as well as “across S, C”?
Halitsky
9/30/12
Read Augmented tables for remaining five folds (results of t-testing
mean(ln(e)) ...
Halitsky
10/1/12
Read Re: Can the argument from means be tightened by t-te
sting means “across N, R” as well as “across S, C”?
Ray Koopman
10/1/12
Read Thanks! Also, please note I'm going to bite the bullet and
"Fisher-Yates" the real data 20 times ....
Halitsky
10/1/12
Read Minor typo in previous post (Astrings instead of Cstrings in one place)
Halitsky
10/1/12
Read Re: Thanks! Also, please note I'm going to bite the bullet and
"Fisher-Yates" the real data 20 times ....
Ray Koopman
10/1/12
Read Yes. please (more detail on the "build-up" of variances and df's)
Halitsky
10/2/12
Read Re: Yes. please (more detail on the "build-up" of variances and df's)
Ray Koopman
10/2/12
Read 1) my restatement of your explanation of the formula; 2)
clarification of "random vs non-random"
Halitsky
10/2/12
Read Re: 1) my restatement of your explanation of the formula; 2)
clarification of "random vs non-random"
Ray Koopman
10/2/12
Read Ahh! "4" meant "point 4", not "4 of something" ...
Halitsky
10/3/12
Read Could you check this one result before I run the 1728?
Halitsky
10/4/12
Read Also, please note I used raw e's, not ln(e)'s ...
Halitsky
10/4/12
Read Also: NOT length interval = 25. Length interval = 1 (lowest)
Halitsky
10/4/12
Read Re: Also: NOT length interval = 25. Length interval = 1 (lowest)
Ray Koopman
10/4/12
Read Unfortunately, I think we now have an absolute rule-out, at least
when trying to use mean of raw e ...
Halitsky
10/4/12
Read Forgot to ask: is it worth "leveraging-up" even though no "base" p
per length interval is < 0.23 ?
Halitsky
10/5/12
Read Re: Forgot to ask: is it worth "leveraging-up" even though no "base"
p per length interval is < 0.23 ?
Ray Koopman
10/5/12
Read Have taken logs; will now leverage; while I'm doing so, could you
consider this possible design error?
Halitsky
10/5/12
Read We MAY be on the right track; if so, how can I possibly thank/repay you?
Halitsky
10/5/12
Read Technical follow-up question re “n choose 2” ana
lysis of table in last post
Halitsky
10/5/12
Read Please forgive the "rose-colored glasses" typo of 0.00013 in my last
post; of course it's 0.0013
Halitsky
10/5/12
Read Re: Please forgive the "rose-colored glasses" typo of 0.00013 in my
last post; of course it's 0.0013
Ray Koopman
10/5/12
Read Re: Technical follow-up question re “n choose 2”
analysis of table in last post
Ray Koopman
10/5/12
Read I have to ask you to clarify your response, and also specify how to
"look at" the t numerator ...
Halitsky
10/5/12
Read Here is the table of t-numerators, sorted in DECREASING order within
fold ....
Halitsky
10/6/12
Read Correct table of "t-numerators" (prior table was t's themselves); but
0.0013 result still holds.
Halitsky
10/6/12
Read Here are the 10 values of the Ornstein-Fresco index used in our
calculation of raw e
Halitsky
10/6/12
Read Calculations in my last post were clearly wrong (re t-num diff's vs
Ornstein-Fresco index spread)
Halitsky
10/13/12
Read Re: Here are the 10 values of the Ornstein-Fresco index used in our
calculation of raw e
Ray Koopman
10/13/12
Read Re: Here are the 10 values of the Ornstein-Fresco index used in our
calculation of raw e
Halitsky
10/13/12
Read Yes - but actually, all the t's should be changed to u's because the
numbers are for RNA, not DNA
Halitsky
10/13/12
Read Re: Yes - but actually, all the t's should be changed to u's because
the numbers are for RNA, not DNA
Ray Koopman
10/13/12
Read Re: Yes - but actually, all the t's should be changed to u's because
the numbers are for RNA, not DNA
Halitsky
10/13/12
Read I looked at the Gibley Ahlquist passage - they're dealing with the
O-F indices on the DNA side of the house ...
Halitsky
10/14/12
Read 1) PDF's of the O-F papers have been emailed; 2) spoke with Jacques,
will speak further with him on Tue
Halitsky
10/14/12
Read Re: 1) PDF's of the O-F papers have been emailed; 2) spoke with
Jacques, will speak further with him on Tue
Ray Koopman
10/14/12
Read Correct p's and df's for Y, Z, Y-Z for 1:R1, 2:R2, 3:R3
Halitsky
10/15/12
Read Finally - a result consistent with our earliest logistic regression
alignability result using a predictor derived from eS of Re
Halitsky
10/15/12
Read Re: Finally - a result consistent with our earliest logistic
regression alignability result using a predictor derived from eS of Re
Ray Koopman
10/15/12
Read An attempt to appopriately organize and caption the three previous tables
Halitsky
10/16/12
Read Relationship of eS to ln(e) (via IOTT and Linear Regression)
Halitsky
10/16/12
Read Oops - sorry: one exception to the IOTT result for uH stated in
previous post
Halitsky
10/18/12
Read Re: An attempt to appopriately organize and caption the three
previous tables
Ray Koopman
10/18/12
Read You really are too kind ... seriously ...
Halitsky
10/18/12
Read Re: You really are too kind ... seriously ...
Ray Koopman
10/18/12
Read 1)Thanks! ( I was taking varY and VarZ to the .05 power, not the .5
power !);
Halitsky
10/20/12
Read Please consider this analysis of mean ln(e) sums and mean eS sums.
Halitsky
10/20/12
Read Your basic plot algorithm MAY help inject a significant dose of
empirical reality into the analysis
Halitsky
10/20/12
Read Please consider these interaction p’s in re our st
rategy for prediction of structural alignability via logisti
c regression.
Halitsky
10/21/12
Read Now that you’ve shown how to tell “where”, can
you show how to tell “why”?
Halitsky
10/18/12
Read Jacques' summary response re scaling of e
Halitsky
10/22/12
Read Re: Jacques' summary response re scaling of e
Ray Koopman
10/22/12
Read Do you have any suggestions about how to "convert" the O-F index for
our purposes?
Halitsky
10/22/12
Read Re: Do you have any suggestions about how to "convert" the O-F index
for our purposes?
Ray Koopman
10/22/12
Read Re: Do you have any suggestions about how to "convert" the O-F index
for our purposes?
Halitsky
10/23/12
Read Re: Do you have any suggestions about how to "convert" the O-F index
for our purposes?
Ray Koopman
10/23/12
Read Believe it or not, I can now answer your questions re the O-F index
clearly and concisely.
Halitsky
10/23/12
Read Re: Believe it or not, I can now answer your questions re the O-F
index clearly and concisely.
Ray Koopman
10/23/12
Read Whoops - sorry! I recapped my code from memory incorrectly.
Halitsky
10/24/12
Read Re: Whoops - sorry! I recapped my code from memory incorrectly.
Ray Koopman
10/24/12
Read Re: Whoops - sorry! I recapped my code from memory incorrectly.
Halitsky
10/24/12
Read Have heard from JRF; he's OK with a composite OFI per dicodon
(defined as a sum, not an average.)
Halitsky
10/25/12
Read Re: Have heard from JRF; he's OK with a composite OFI per dicodon
(defined as a sum, not an average.)
Ray Koopman
10/25/12
Read Re: Have heard from JRF; he's OK with a composite OFI per dicodon
(defined as a sum, not an average.)
Halitsky
10/25/12
Read Minor correction to last post regarding "e = S / 3"
Halitsky
10/25/12
Read Re: Have heard from JRF; he's OK with a composite OFI per dicodon
(defined as a sum, not an average.)
Ray Koopman
10/25/12
Read Re: Have heard from JRF; he's OK with a composite OFI per dicodon
(defined as a sum, not an average.)
Halitsky
10/25/12
Read You've probably realized by now that the dH for a single doublet ONLY
has scientific meaning as a unit in an additive calculation.
Halitsky
10/25/12
Read Re: Have heard from JRF; he's OK with a composite OFI per dicodon
(defined as a sum, not an average.)
Ray Koopman
10/25/12
Read You’re correct: the dhbarcalc for the equation IS
an AVERAGE, not a SUM.
Halitsky
10/26/12
Read Am sending off-line a "csv" file with the Tm's and Kelvin Tm's for
the 3721 "non-stop" dicodons
Halitsky
10/27/12
Read Re: Am sending off-line a "csv" file with the Tm's and Kelvin Tm's
for the 3721 "non-stop" dicodons
Ray Koopman
10/28/12
Read Interaction p’s using “new e”
Halitsky
10/28/12
Read Re: Interaction p’s using “new e”
Ray Koopman
10/28/12
Read Re: Interaction p’s using “new e”
Ray Koopman
10/28/12
Read I figured the Bonferroni-correction was coming ...
Halitsky
10/29/12
Read My naive opinion is that "new e" clarifies the situation considerably ...
Halitsky
10/29/12
Read Correction of two obvious typos in Ru section of last posted table
Halitsky
10/29/12
Read Re: My naive opinion is that "new e" clarifies the situation
considerably ...
Ray Koopman
10/29/12
Read Re: My naive opinion is that "new e" clarifies the situation
considerably ...
Halitsky
10/29/12
Read Re: My naive opinion is that "new e" clarifies the situation
considerably ...
Ray Koopman
10/29/12
Read Re: My naive opinion is that "new e" clarifies the situation
considerably ...
Halitsky
10/29/12
Read Is there a standard ranking function which takes into account |x-y|
as well as x/y ?
Halitsky
10/31/12
Read Re: Is there a standard ranking function which takes into account
|x-y| as well as x/y ?
Ray Koopman
10/31/12
Read Please agree to or improve on the following interaction nomenclature
gimpeltf@hotmail.com
11/2/12
Read Re: Please agree to or improve on the following interaction nomenclature
Ray Koopman
11/2/12
Read Now that I “understand” the effect/interaction s
caffold, I can better frame objectives/goals.
Halitsky
11/2/12
Read Minor but confusing typo in (V,B,4) of last post
Halitsky
11/4/12
Read I MAY have a correct generalization, but don’t wan
t to post prematurely.
Halitsky
11/5/12
Read Re: I MAY have a correct generalization, but don’t
want to post prematurely.
Ray Koopman
11/5/12
Read My apologies for the "overload", and thanks for the "go-ahead"
Halitsky
11/7/12
Read Follow-up question I forgot to ask re ln(L) on (ln(c),ln(e)) and
ln(L) on (ln(c),ln(u)) ...
Halitsky
11/8/12
Read Nope – those 2 new regressions don’t work out at
all
Halitsky
11/9/12
Read Within length intervals, it IS OK to consider ln(c) on ln(e) and
ln(c) on ln(u).
Halitsky
11/10/12
Read Re: My apologies for the "overload", and thanks for the "go-ahead"
Ray Koopman
11/10/12
Read Thanks for the review of the putative generalization ...
Halitsky
11/10/12
Read Please note that one column of the second table in my last post "wrapped"
Halitsky
11/11/12
Read Is this 1997 study a good practical example of a trivariate
distribution analysis?
Halitsky
11/11/12
Read Re: Is this 1997 study a good practical example of a trivariate
distribution analysis?
Ray Koopman
11/12/12
Read 1) thanks; 2) the simplified regressions in my prior post; 3) Ogle's
algorithm for generating bivariate normals with specific correlations
Halitsky
11/12/12
Read Re: 1) thanks; 2) the simplified regressions in my prior post; 3)
Ogle's algorithm for generating bivariate normals with specific correlations
Ray Koopman
11/12/12
Read Thansk for taking the time to try and decipher my reasoning re 3-ways
associated with the simplified model ...
Halitsky
11/12/12
Read Not sure if last post went thru, so am reposting - may result in a duplicate
Halitsky
11/16/12
Read Re: Not sure if last post went thru, so am reposting - may result in
a duplicate
Ray Koopman
11/16/12
Read Your latest assessment of the situation
Halitsky
11/16/12
Read Your "3-way" methodology has revealed two data tendencies wondrously
subtle and elegant ....
Halitsky
11/18/12
Read 1) Good news: two scientifically reasonable results;
2) Bad news: they don’t withstand Bonferroni correction
Halitsky
11/18/12
Read Have sent you off-line a file of uL and uH medians (
I’ve changed to your median approach)
Halitsky
11/16/12
Read A computationally cheap way to visualize “(e,c,u)|
L” (cheaper than trivariate analysis)
Halitsky
11/16/12
Read Re: A computationally cheap way to visualize “(e,c
,u)|L” (cheaper than trivariate analysis)
Ray Koopman
11/16/12
Read I had a sneaking suspicion you were going to insist on mapping to [0,1].
Halitsky
11/19/12
Read Re: I had a sneaking suspicion you were going to insist on mapping to [0,1].
Ray Koopman
11/19/12
Read Thanks for your formalization of the “centroid”
mechanics and the estiamte of their possible utility
Halitsky
11/20/12
Read Re: Thanks for your formalization of the “centroid
” mechanics and the estiamte of their possible utility
Ray Koopman
11/20/12
Read 1) Thanks for reviewing the “u-relativization” p
roposal; 2) question re “centroids”
Halitsky
11/20/12
Read Re: 1) Thanks for reviewing the “u-relativization
” proposal; 2) question re “centroids”
Ray Koopman
11/20/12
Read Responses (various) to your last (11/20:454pm)
Halitsky
10/23/12
Read A postscript from Jacques ...
Halitsky
10/8/12
Read If we had data for 20 folds instead of 6, could we argue from the new
result herein ?
Halitsky
10/8/12
Read The result in my previous post suggests a design sim
plification that MAY yield CI plots with decent “splits”
Halitsky
10/9/12
Read Re: If we had data for 20 folds instead of 6, could we argue from the
new result herein ?
Ray Koopman
10/9/12
Read Reply to your post of 10/9 at 3:54pm
Halitsky
10/10/12
Read Re: Reply to your post of 10/9 at 3:54pm
Ray Koopman
10/10/12
Read Please check if I understand how to get (Y,varY, dfY) at uL
Halitsky
10/11/12
Read Re: Please check if I understand how to get (Y,varY, dfY) at uL
Ray Koopman
10/11/12
Read Thanks(!) for the clarification – please just chec
k me now on the very first step.
Halitsky
10/11/12
Read Re: Thanks(!) for the clarification – please just
check me now on the very first step.
Ray Koopman
10/12/12
Read Re: Thanks(!) for the clarification – please just
check me now on the very first step.
Ray Koopman
10/12/12
Read Thanks again; now, please permit a question about applicability of
the protocol to coefficients
Halitsky
10/12/12
Read Re: Thanks again; now, please permit a question about applicability
of the protocol to coefficients
Ray Koopman
10/12/12
Read Are these "good enough" to keep going: pY at uL~.95, pZ at uH~.33,
p(Y-Z)~.23 ???
Halitsky
10/12/12
Read Forgot to mention: as you expected, df(Y), df(Z), and df(Y-Z) were
huge ...
Halitsky
10/12/12
Read Re: Forgot to mention: as you expected, df(Y), df(Z), and df(Y-Z)
were huge ...
Ray Koopman
10/12/12
Read I assume you're referring to the null hypothesis here, i.e. that the
means are the same ...
Halitsky
10/12/12
Read Re: Are these "good enough" to keep going: pY at uL~.95, pZ at
uH~.33, p(Y-Z)~.23 ???
Ray Koopman
10/12/12
Read Re vars vs SE's ...
Halitsky
10/10/12
Read Regarding the question of fold-generalizability, here's the question ...
Halitsky
10/11/12
Read Re: Regarding the question of fold-generalizability, here's the
question ...
Ray Koopman
10/9/12
Read S and new C subsets for dicodon set 1 (showing that
expected u’s are now the same for S and C)
Halitsky
10/1/12
Read Two follow-on POSSIBLE “$64K” questions (I’m H
OPING you MAY agree that they are!)
Halitsky
9/21/12
Read Before doing the other five folds, I should state "a priori" what
Jacques/Arthur would like to see ...
Halitsky
9/21/12
Read One other "a prior" note re Jacques' and Arthur's devoutest hope ...
Halitsky
8/25/12
Read For multiple linear regressions, are definitions same for SlopeVar,
IntcptVar, and (Sl,Int)Covar???
Halitsky
8/26/12
Read Re: For multiple linear regressions, are definitions same for
SlopeVar, IntcptVar, and (Sl,Int)Covar???
Ray Koopman
8/26/12
Read For our multiple regression ,will SE's of coefficients (including
intercept) suffice for now?
Halitsky
8/26/12
Read As you can see from my offline emails with Ivo Welch, I CAN get the
covariance matrix that's required ...
Halitsky
8/27/12
Read Re: As you can see from my offline emails with Ivo Welch, I CAN get
the covariance matrix that's required ...
Ray Koopman
8/27/12
Read Re: As you can see from my offline emails with Ivo Welch, I CAN get
the covariance matrix that's required ...
Halitsky
8/27/12
Read So far so good - Ivo's coefficients are same as yours for your test data
Halitsky
8/28/12
Read Quick question re multiplying AX'y to get b.
Halitsky
8/28/12
Read Thanks for the cautionary note, but here's why there's no cause for
concern ...
Halitsky
8/31/12
Read Would more pairs of files help you determine whether you can
construct the desired test?
Halitsky
8/29/12
Read List of Descriptors for Forthcoming "Structural Parameters" Results Files
Halitsky
8/28/12
Read I've got v and C = vA. and they match yours !!!!!
Halitsky
7/25/12
Read Test post only to check available horizontal space ... please ignore
Halitsky
6/27/12
Read Prelim results for ln(c/u) on ln(c/L) for S63 computed for u_low,
u_high, and u_all
Halitsky
6/27/12
Read Re: Prelim results for ln(c/u) on ln(c/L) for S63 computed for u_low,
u_high, and u_all
Halitsky
6/22/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Halitsky
6/22/12
Read Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail
file later today
Halitsky
6/2/12
Read The expected frequency tables for S60, C537, S119, and C1058 are all
OK - I've double-checked them.
Halitsky
6/3/12
Read Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"
Ray Koopman
5/30/12
Read Please ignore 4 tables in last post - here are the tables WITHOUT
three clerical errors.
Halitsky
5/30/12
Read Re: Please ignore 4 tables in last post - here are the tables WITHOUT
three clerical errors.
Ray Koopman
5/30/12
Read Re: Please ignore 4 tables in last post - here are the tables WITHOUT
three clerical errors.
Halitsky
5/30/12
Read ln(c/u) on ln(c/L) may not be "weak" but rather 2-3 times stronger
than it should be for study group data.
Halitsky
5/26/12
Read Here are the t-test results for e, c, and u themselves (for a1 fold,
S63 and S60 groups)
Halitsky
5/26/12
Read Two questions re actual c,e,u, expected ln(c/u), ln(c/e), and actual
lnc/u, ln(c/e)
Halitsky
5/26/12
Read Re: Two questions re actual c,e,u, expected ln(c/u), ln(c/e), and
actual lnc/u, ln(c/e)
Ray Koopman
5/26/12
Read Re: Two questions re actual c,e,u, expected ln(c/u), ln(c/e), and
actual lnc/u, ln(c/e)
Halitsky
5/27/12
Read Re: Two questions re actual c,e,u, expected ln(c/u), ln(c/e), and
actual lnc/u, ln(c/e)
Ray Koopman
5/25/12
Read Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results
Halitsky
5/25/12
Read Re: New queston: need your advice on some "study group vs study
group" t-test results
Halitsky
5/25/12
Read T-tests of ln(c/e), ln(c/u), ln(c/L), e, u, and c for STudy Groups
(63) and (60)
Halitsky
5/20/12
Read Re: Should I obtain "R" to do Bartlett's (or Fligner's)
homoscedasticity tests on the driver correlations?
Ray Koopman
5/20/12
Read Re: Should I obtain "R" to do Bartlett's (or Fligner's)
homoscedasticity tests on the driver correlations?
Halitsky
5/20/12
Read Re: Should I obtain "R" to do Bartlett's (or Fligner's)
homoscedasticity tests on the driver correlations?
Ray Koopman
5/20/12
Read Re: Should I obtain "R" to do Bartlett's (or Fligner's)
homoscedasticity tests on the driver correlations?
Halitsky
5/15/12
Read Re: Means and SD's for "u" (representation level) in control & study
groups for all six folds
Ray Koopman
5/15/12
Read Re: Means and SD's for "u" (representation level) in control & study
groups for all six folds
Halitsky

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.