Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:50:35 +0200, Tobias Richter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We have collected variables that represent proportions (i. e., the
> > proportion of sentences in a number of texts that belong to a certain
> > category). The distributions of these variables are highly skewed (the
> > proportions for most of the texts are zero or rather low). So my
>
> Low proportions, and a lot at zero?
I missed the "lot at zero" on first reading - so my other post is nonsense.
Rich is right - you can't do anything much about symmetry if you have a
large clump at zero.
*Any* monotonic increasing transformation will still leave you with a large
clump at the bottom. No matter what you do all those values have
to end up at the same place as all the other zeros, right?
Why would symmetry be necessary?
Glen
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
