[IDA'01] Call for Participation - Early Reg July 13th
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Please forward this call to your colleagues who might be interested in =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CALL FOR PARTICIPATION IDA-2001 Fourth International Symposium on Intelligent Data Analysis New University of Lisbon, Portugal 13th-15th September 2001 Take advantage of the EARLY REGISTRATION RATE DEADLINE : JULY, 13th, 2001 For additional information on the conference, registration and accomodation forms, take a look at the conference web site http://centria.di.fct.unl.pt/ida01/ --- IDA-2001 will take place in Lisbon from 13th to 15th September 2001. It consist of a stimulating program of tutorials, invited talks by leading international experts in intelligent data analysis, contributed papers, poster sessions, and an exciting social program. It is intended to stimulate interaction between different areas (statistics, machine learning, neural networks, computer science, pattern recognition, data- base management, KDD), so that more powerful tools emerge for extracting knowledge from data and a better understanding is developed of the pro- cess of intelligent data analysis. = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Send your updated resume for Statistician 70K Permanent Exton PA
Details For ADLP-0602-Stat Title: Statistician Rate/Salary: 70K Type: Permanent Description: Statistician Responsible for the design, modification and evaluation of a technical infrastructure/clinical development plans to expedite conducting evaluation of clinical trials by performing statistical analysis and developing tracking systems. Qualified candidate will have M.S. degree or PhD in Statistics or Biostatistics and two or more years of closely related experience and a sound knowledge of SAS. Must Have: SAS Primary Skill: SAS Location: Exton PA 19341 Area Code: 484 Infinix Corporation Phone : 609-936-0101 Fax : 609-936-0202 Contact Person : Dove Sussman Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: about a problem of khi2 test
On Sun, 01 Jul 2001 14:19:31 +0200, Bruno Facon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I work in the area of intelligence differentiation. I would like to know > how to use the khi2 statistic to determine whether the number of > statistically different correlations between two groups is due or not to > random variations. In particular I would like to know how to determine > the expected numbers of statistically different correlations due to > chance. > Let me take an example. Suppose I compare two correlations matrices of > 45 coefficients obtained from two independent groups (A and B). If there > is no true difference between the two matrices, the number of > statistically different correlations should be equal to 1.25 in favor of Yes, that is the number. But there is not a legitimate test that I know of, unless you are willing to make a strong assumption that no pair of the variables should be correlated. I never heard of the khi2 statistic before this. I searched with google, and found a respectable number of references, and here is something that I had not seen with a statistic: kh2 appears to be solely French in its use. Of the first 50 hits, most were in French, at French ISPs (.fr). The few that were in English were also from French sources. One article had a reference (not available in my local libraries): Freilich MH and Chelton DB, J Phys Oceanogr 16, 741-757. > > group A and equal to 1.25 in favor of group B (in case of alpha = .05). > > Consequently, the expected number of nonsignificant differences should > be 42.75. Is my reasoning correct? I would be nice to test the numbers, but I don't credit that reference as a good one, yet. I don't remember for sure, but I think you might be able to compare two correlation matrices with programs from Jim Steiger's site, http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/steiger/multi.htm On the other hand, you would be better off if you can compare the entire covariance structures, to keep from making accidental assumptions about variances. (Does Jim provide for that?) -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: cigs & figs
- in respect of the up-coming U.S. holiday - On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:49:47 GMT, mackeral@remove~this~first~yahoo.com (J. Williams) wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:37:48 -0400, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > >What rights are denied to smokers? JW > > Many smokers, including my late mother, feel being unable to smoke on > a commerical aircraft, sit anywhere in a restaurant, etc. were > violation of her "rights." I don't agree as a non-smoker, but that > was her viewpoint until the day she died. What's your point: She was a crabby old lady, whining (or whinging) about fancied 'rights'? You don't introduce anything that seems "inalienable" or "self-evident" (if I may introduce July-4th language). Nobody stopped her from smoking as long as she kept it away from other people-who-would-be-offended. Okay, we form governments to help assure each other of rights. Lately, the law sees fit to stop some assaults from happening, even though it did not always do that in the past. - the offender still has quite a bit of leeway; if you don't cause fatal diseases, you legally can offend quite a lot. We finally have laws about smoking. But she wants the law to stop at HER convenience? [ snip, various ] JW > > Talking about confused and/or politically driven, what do Scalia and > Thomas have to do with smoking rights? Please cite the case law. I mention "rights" because that did seem to be a attitude you mentioned that was (as you see) provocative to me. I toss in S & T, because I think that, to a large extent, they share your mother's preference for a casual, self-centered definition of rights. And they are Supreme Court justices. [ Well, they don't say, "This is what *I* want" these two translate the blame/ credit to Nature (euphemism for God).] So: I don't fault your mother *too* harshly, when Justices hardly do better. Even though a prolonged skew was needed, to end up with two like this. -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: cigs & figs
Actually, the word is "unalienable." reg - Original Message - From: Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:08 PM Subject: Re: cigs & figs > - in respect of the up-coming U.S. holiday - > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:49:47 GMT, mackeral@remove~this~first~yahoo.com > (J. Williams) wrote: > > > On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:37:48 -0400, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > >What rights are denied to smokers? > JW > > > Many smokers, including my late mother, feel being unable to smoke on > > a commerical aircraft, sit anywhere in a restaurant, etc. were > > violation of her "rights." I don't agree as a non-smoker, but that > > was her viewpoint until the day she died. > > What's your point: She was a crabby old lady, whining (or > whinging) about fancied 'rights'? > > You don't introduce anything that seems "inalienable" or > "self-evident" (if I may introduce July-4th language). > Nobody stopped her from smoking as long as she kept it away > from other people-who-would-be-offended. > > Okay, we form governments to help assure each other of rights. > Lately, the law sees fit to stop some assaults from happening, > even though it did not always do that in the past. - the offender > still has quite a bit of leeway; if you don't cause fatal diseases, > you legally can offend quite a lot. We finally have laws about > smoking. > > But she wants the law to stop at HER convenience? > > [ snip, various ] > JW > > > Talking about confused and/or politically driven, what do Scalia and > > Thomas have to do with smoking rights? Please cite the case law. > > I mention "rights" because that did seem to be a attitude you > mentioned that was (as you see) provocative to me. > > I toss in S & T, because I think that, to a large extent, they > share your mother's preference for a casual, self-centered > definition of rights. And they are Supreme Court justices. > [ Well, they don't say, "This is what *I* want" these two > translate the blame/ credit to Nature (euphemism for God).] > > So: I don't fault your mother *too* harshly, when Justices > hardly do better. Even though a prolonged skew was needed, > to end up with two like this. > > > -- > Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html > > > = > Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about > the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at > http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ > = > = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: cigs & figs
Yes, historically correct. Mr. Jefferson and colleagues used "unalienable" in the Declaration of Independence, though "inalienable" is the overwhelming preference nowadays. ---Jerry Zar >>> "Reg Jordan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/03/01 04:10PM >>> Actually, the word is "unalienable." reg - Original Message - From: Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:08 PM Subject: Re: cigs & figs > - in respect of the up-coming U.S. holiday - > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:49:47 GMT, mackeral@remove~this~first~yahoo.com > (J. Williams) wrote: > > > On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:37:48 -0400, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > >What rights are denied to smokers? > JW > > > Many smokers, including my late mother, feel being unable to smoke on > > a commerical aircraft, sit anywhere in a restaurant, etc. were > > violation of her "rights." I don't agree as a non-smoker, but that > > was her viewpoint until the day she died. > > What's your point: She was a crabby old lady, whining (or > whinging) about fancied 'rights'? > > You don't introduce anything that seems "inalienable" or > "self-evident" (if I may introduce July-4th language). > Nobody stopped her from smoking as long as she kept it away > from other people-who-would-be-offended. = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
