Hi Digby and All, I did a little experiment on the idea that Digby mentioned: The sill will estimate the population variance, but found it not true in my experiment:
1. I generated a set of one-dimentional data with 27 points on regular unit spacings, which I'd like to take it as the true, or population value. On purpose, I generate the data so it has an influence range of three length units. 2. I calculated the experimental variogram. Notice that the variogram is the population variogram. The sill value is around 2.8. 3. But the population variance is 2.39, lower than the sill value. This confirms my doubt about using sill value as the estimate of population variance, since I calculate the variogram and variance based on all data points. Please tell me what you think. The data I generated are as follows: 0.056970748 0.14520424 0.849710204 1.650514605 1.101666385 1.015177986 2.150259206 2.830780659 0.223495817 -2.47615958 -3.372697392 -0.530685611 0.786582177 0.970673 0.674755256 0.338461632 1.020874834 0.410936991 1.702892405 2.649748012 4.290179731 3.442015668 1.488818953 0.862788738 0.728709892 2.398182914 1.522546427
* By using the ai-geostats mailing list you agree to follow its rules ( see http://www.ai-geostats.org/help_ai-geostats.htm ) * To unsubscribe to ai-geostats, send the following in the subject or in the body (plain text format) of an email message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signoff ai-geostats
