On Fri, 7 May 2004, Phil Sherrod wrote: > How do you propose to handle the categorical variables with survival > analysis? (See note which follows.)
See my initial response to AJ of Thursday noon. Later, I had written in part: > > No. AJ explicitly writes "66 categorical VALUES" and Phil replied: > It is very common for people to interchange the terms values and > variables. Later in the same paragraph he said "variables such as what > kind of car a customer drives, how much she is educated, or how much > she earns etc." Note VARIABLES. I believe that each customer has 66 > VALUES in the record -- one for each VARIABLE. You don't think that > there is one variable that has measures for type of car, educational > level and income, do you? I can only repeat: That's what the OP wrote. You can only persist in arguing for 66 variables by assuming that the original poster did not mean what (s)he wrote, or did not understand (or did not correctly describe) his/her own problem. >From such egregious and gratuitous discourtesy, prithee have me excused. > If AJ is following this thread, maybe he can clarify this issue. (S)He's probably having more fun watching... > For the point of the discussion, let's assume there are 66 variables, Counterfactual. Pointless to discuss. ------------------------------------------------------------ Donald F. Burrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] 56 Sebbins Pond Drive, Bedford, NH 03110 (603) 626-0816 . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
