Robert Ehrlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Calculation of eigenvalues and eigenvalues requires no assumption.
> However evaluation of the results IMHO implicitly assumes at least a
> unimodal distribution and reasonably homogeneous variance
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Melady Preece wrote in part:
> I am teaching educational statistics for the first time, and although I
> can go on at length about complex statistical techniques, I find myself
> at a loss with this multiple choice question in my test bank. I
> understand why the range of
- re: some outstandingly confused thinking. Or writing.
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 15:25:31 GMT, mackeral@remove~this~first~yahoo.com
(J. Williams) wrote:
[ snip; Slate reference, etcetera ]
> ... My mother was 91 years
> old when she died a year ago and chain smoked since her college da
At 12:20 PM 6/24/01 -0700, Melady Preece wrote:
>Hi. I am teaching educational statistics for the first time, and although I
>can go on at length about complex statistical techniques, I find myself at a
>loss with this multiple choice question in my test bank. I understand why
>the range of (b)
Hi. I am teaching educational statistics for the first time, and although I
can go on at length about complex statistical techniques, I find myself at a
loss with this multiple choice question in my test bank. I understand why
the range of (b) is smaller than (a) and (c), but I can't figure out
In linear regression, Cook's distance test is used to identify if there are
a few influential observations that affect the parameter estimates. I was
wondering if there is any such test to identify if a few observations
are unduly influencing the estimated results in the context of a
multinomial L
- I will delete most, and comment on a few points.
Maybe further posts will delete the sci.stat.* groups -
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:49:02 GMT, Steve Leibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[ ... ]
>
> Hallucinating? On po
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 21:12:40 -0700, Chas F Brown
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>"David C. Ullrich" wrote:
>>
[...]
>
>In the back-of-envelope calculations I did, this is really the key
>missing information. If heart attacks are evenly distributed through the
>day, while MJ smoking (as far as I
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 23:35:06 GMT, Tetsuo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tetsuo at
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 24-06-2001 00:17:
>
>> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David C. Ullrich at
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 23-06-2001 16:06:
>>
>>[obvious jokes'
>[explanation of
