If the areas are equal, and the max height is clearly different (we're not talking line widths here), then there _must_ be other places where the curves do not match. I think you are facing 2 different pdf's.
Jay Chia C Chong wrote: > The area of the empirical PDF is equal to one as I have normalised it... > > CCC > > "Elliot Cramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > In sci.stat.consult Chia C Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > : down!!) fit very accurately to the data. The only bit that is not fit is > the > > : height of the estimated gamma PDF is not high enough. Does this means > that > > > > ARe the areas thee same? > > > > > > > > ================================================================= > Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the > problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at > http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ > ================================================================= -- Jay Warner Principal Scientist Warner Consulting, Inc. 4444 North Green Bay Road Racine, WI 53404-1216 USA Ph: (262) 634-9100 FAX: (262) 681-1133 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.a2q.com The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today? ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =================================================================
