RE: [ai-geostats] natural neighbor applied to indicator transforms

2005-08-31 Thread Gregoire Dubois
Title: Message I recently attended a presentation about the mapping of soil properties. Kriging was applied and I was wondering why a regression technique was used instead of a classification algorithm. Delineating soil properties seemed to be, at first sight, a classification problem than

RE: [ai-geostats] natural neighbor applied to indicator transforms

2005-08-31 Thread seba
Hi Gregorie Well, I think that classification could be viewed as a way of coding of information in sampled areas. In particular for soil properties continuos or fuzzy classification seems to work properly. Then, avoiding to talk about the non-convexity of kriging, we can interpolate before or

[ai-geostats] Sum of Estimates

2005-08-31 Thread Colin Badenhorst
Dear List, I have a rather interesting problem with my Kriged estimates for a base metal mine. I am estimating Zn, Pb and Fe, as percentage,the sum of which should total to no more than 100% total sulphides. All Zn comes from sphalerite (ZnS) at 0.671 proportion. Sphalerite SG =3.80 All

Re: [ai-geostats] Sum of Estimates

2005-08-31 Thread Marco Alfaro S.
Dear Colin: The solution of your problem is co-kriging. M. Rigidel has another solution: this solution and the cokriging is discussed in: "Cas de simplification du cokrigeage" by Georges Matheron.Paris School of Mines. Regards, Marco ---Mensaje original--- De: Colin Badenhorst

Re: [ai-geostats] natural neighbor applied to indicator transforms

2005-08-31 Thread Nicolas Gilardi
To answer to Gregoire's question, for some comparisons between SVM and Indicator Kriging, here is a very basic paper (from 1999): http://baikal-bangkok.org/~nicolas/publi/acai99-svm.pdf and a thesis chapter (chapter 6), perhaps more interesting (from 2002):

[Fwd: Re: [ai-geostats] natural neighbor applied to indicator transforms]

2005-08-31 Thread Nicolas Gilardi
I'm also forwarding this answer from Dr Samy Bengio who hasn't subscribed to ai-geostats. His e-mail address is available at the end of his e-mail. Best regards -- Nicolas Gilardi Particle Physics Experiment group University of Edinburgh, JCMB Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, United Kingdoms tel: +44

Re: [ai-geostats] Why degree of freedom is n-1

2005-08-31 Thread Eric.Lewin
This follow-up is slighlty aside the subject line of the mailing list, but as a geologist, this is the only statistically-flavoured one I am subscribed to. Therefore : Federico Pardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Having N samples, and then n degrees of freedom. One degree of freedom is used (or

[ai-geostats] Re: Why degree of freedom is n-1

2005-08-31 Thread Isobel Clark
Hi Eric What complications! You should find, in any basic statistical inference that the correlation is divided by (n-1) and has (n-2) degrees of freedom. The logic behind this is because the correlation is actually calculated as the covariance divided by the two standard deviations. The

[ai-geostats] Pareto vs Lognormal distribution

2005-08-31 Thread Beatrice Mare-Jones
Hello list I am a PhD student looking at developing a statistical model to predict the size-distribution of an area's oil and gas fields. It is clear that previous investigators prefer either a Pareto power law or a lognormal distribution to approximate field-size distributions. The data I

RE: [ai-geostats] Sum of Estimates

2005-08-31 Thread Reid, David W
Hi Colin, Have you checked the Fe content of your sphalerite + other mineralogy in the problem area? But I guess from your statement "Thus, there is no combination of Zn, Pb and Fe in the estimationdatabase that totals more than 100% total sulphide" you havecalculated the total percent