- DB's note was in sci.stat.edu. - This is posted to all three sci.stat.* groups.
On Fri, 7 May 2004 16:30:36 GMT, "Phil Sherrod" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7-May-2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donald Burrill) wrote: > > > Which refers both to "cancelled customers" and to "customers who are > > still with us". One may have an ending date for the current > > subscription; but until the customer decides to renew (or to cancel) > > one does not know whether the subscription will in fact end on that > > date. Sounds like survival analysis to me. > > How do you propose to handle the categorical variables with survival > analysis? (See note which follows.) > > > No. AJ explicitly writes "66 categorical VALUES" > > 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 This seems odd. From Don's post, I expect that my own posting from 11 hours previous had not yet shown up in the sci.stat.edu mail-list. But I thought that Phil S. was reading the group, and he had my own e-mail courtesy-copy, besides, where I made the same point, and I included the fact that the original user proposed to analyse the 66 values with 65 dummy variables (by regression). By the way, on survivorship, I mentioned that another user had posted about that being the appropriate strategy -- I notice now that David Duffy posted that only in the sci.stat.math group; the original Q was cross-posted to all three (sci.stat.consult, too). -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
