On 26 Mar 2003 20:28:07 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donald Burrill) wrote: > On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, kjetil brinchmann halvorsen wrote: > > > On 26 Mar 2003 at 10:55, Rich Ulrich wrote: [ snip to the question - ] > > > Are you referring to bivariate normality? > > > > What is the wrong with the word binormal? > > I don't suppose there's anything _wrong_ with it, as a word; it's just > that I (for one) do not know what the querent wants to mean by it. > Possibly he intends, as Rich guesses, "bivariate normality"; but the > word "binormal" is quite unfamiliar to me in any _statistical_ context. [ snip, rest]
- it is not great form to mention private e-mail, but, to end the suspense - The "intended" word with "bi" was bimodality. It was a question about a (possible) mixture of two Gaussians. - I encouraged the poster to try again. My response on goodness of fit, etc., is possibly the best totally-irrelevant reply I ever composed. -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
