[ I have rearranged Zar's note.] After this one,
Harold W Kerster [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/29/01 04:31PM
If you define the range as max - min, you get zero, not one. What
definition are you using.
On 29 Oct 2001 16:11:15 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerrold Zar)
wrote:
I was referring to
If you define the range as max - min, you get zero, not one. What
definition are you using.
Harold W. Kerster, Professor Emeritus
Environmental Studies
Calif. State U., Sacramento
Ph: 916-363-7837
FAX 916-278-7582
=
I was referring to the definition that others on the list had proposed:
max - min +1. It is NOT a definition with which I agree.
Jerrold H. Zar, Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL 60115
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harold W Kerster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The range is routinely considered a measure of dispersion or
variability. Applying your definition to a sample of data in which
every measurement is identical (for example, 100 body weights, with each
body weight being 50 grams), then--even though there is no dispersion,
no variability, among
One what? Any statistic that depends on the units used seems rather
arbitrary to me. If I compute the range of weights of a group of people
(in kilograms) I ought to get the same actual *weight* as an American
using pounds or a Brit using stones.
On a lighter note - sorry -
William B. Ware [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, more to the point... the add one is an old argument based on
the notion of real limits. Suppose the range of scores is 50 to
89. It was argued that 50 really goes down to 49.5 and 89 really
goes up to 89.5. Thus the range was defined as
jeff rasmussen wrote:
Dear statistically-enamored,
There was a question in my undergrad class concerning how to define the
range, where a student pointed out that contrary to my edict, the range was
the difference between the maximum minimum. I'd always believed that
the
Robert,
I don't think I understand your argument... Are you saying that the
descriptive statistic should be invariant over scale?
Anyway, more to the point... the add one is an old argument based on the
notion of real limits. Suppose the range of scores is 50 to 89. It was
argued that 50
i think that the +1 is reasonable IF, we have a potentially continuous
variable that, for convenience, we put tick marks at arbitrary points ...
such as a 50 item test ... we let scores be 23, or 24, or 25, etc.
IF the assumption is that knowledge is continuous ... then i don't see
anything
William B. Ware said on 10/5/01 8:58 AM:
I don't think I understand your argument... Are you saying that the
descriptive statistic should be invariant over scale?
Anyway, more to the point... the add one is an old argument based on the
notion of real limits. Suppose the range of scores is 50
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert J. MacG. Dawson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
jeff rasmussen wrote:
Dear statistically-enamored,
There was a question in my undergrad class concerning how to
define the
range, where a student pointed out that contrary to my edict, the range was
William B. Ware [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in sci.stat.edu:
Anyway, more to the point... the add one is an old argument based on the
notion of real limits. Suppose the range of scores is 50 to 89. It was
argued that 50 really goes down to 49.5 and 89 really goes up to
89.5. Thus the range was
Dear statistically-enamored,
There was a question in my undergrad class concerning how to define the
range, where a student pointed out that contrary to my edict, the range was
the difference between the maximum minimum. I'd always believed that
the correct answer was the difference
This is news to me - I have only ever heard the range defined as
'maximum - minimum' (and then usually wiped out as a mostly useless
statistic..)
I usually point out to students that in everyday language the word
'range' is used for the interval - as in 'prices for cabbages ranged
from $1 to
14 matches
Mail list logo
