Jan, you sent this to me personally not to the list - although you may have posted it earlier to the list and I din't see it.
You lost the right to my response when you turned down my invitation 12 years ago. Your relentless attempts to denigrate a subject simply because you do not understand it does not improve the situation.
I repeat my invitation. Come down to Reno, sit in my course, learn the answers to your questions and put your point of view when appropriate. You might also want to study the differences in the use of English between North America and the dry humour of Scotland.
Isobel
JW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Everybody,As a compassionate person who is married to a granny I would not want to scramble anybody's brain so I keep my questions simple enough to understand them myself. What I would want most of all is answers to the following questions:Why is the real variance of a SINGLE distance-weighted average replaced with the pseudo kriging variance of a SET of kriged estimates?Visit ai-geostats.org, go to Documents/JW_Merks, look at the Excel template titled "Bre-X and the Kriging Game", and compare the statistics of two widely-spaced lines of salted boreholes with those for three lines of kriged boreholes. Could kriging possibly create spatial dependence where it doesn't exists?Next, look at the Excel template titled "Clark and the Kriging Game", and figure out what happens when Clark's coordinates are replaced with coordinates beyond the sample space defined by her set of hypothetical uranium concentrations . Examine whether or not Clark's ordered set displays a significant degree of spatial dependence by applying Fisher's F-test. Note how degrees of freedom change from positive irrationals to positive integers when the distance-weighted average converges on the arithmetic mean and its variance on the Central Limit Theorem as all weighing factors converge on 1/n.That is not too difficult to understand but what about testing for spatial dependence. One or other geostats doctrine dictates that spatial dependence may be assumed , unless proved otherwise. How about that? I wouldn't mention it if I couldn't post the proof on my website! And Matheron didn't even teach his disciples how to prove otherwise!!!Why is spatial dependence assumed rather than verified by applying Fisher's F-test?Visit ai-geostats.org, go to Documents/JW_Merks, look at the Excel template titled "Bre-X Bonanza Borehole", and find out how Fisher's F-test proves not only that the ordered set of Bre-X's bogus gold grades displays a significant degree of spatial dependence but also that the intrinsic variance of Busang's gold is statistically identical to zero just the same.I could have proved that the intrinsic variance of Busang's phantom gold is statistically identical to zero on the basis of three to five boreholes and twenty to thirty duplicate gold assays for crushed and salted 2.9 m core sections. I shall prove that in due course. Some of you are unconvinced that the kriging game is about to grind to a halt, and that drum beating about the Wits bush is futile. After all, it is a scientific fraud to assume, krige, smooth and rig the rules of mathematical statistics.J W Merks
* By using the ai-geostats mailing list you agree to follow its rules ( see http://www.ai-geostats.org/help_ai-geostats.htm )
* To unsubscribe to ai-geostats, send the following in the subject or in the body (plain text format) of an email message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signoff ai-geostats
