own" <nick.br...@free.fr>, "peter dalgaard" <pda...@gmail.com>
> Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
> Sent: Friday, 5 May, 2017 8:22:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [Rd] lm() gives different results to lm.ridge() and SPSS
>
> Dear Nick,
>
>
> On 2017-05-05, 9:40 A
a>
To: "Nick Brown" <nick.br...@free.fr>, "peter dalgaard" <pda...@gmail.com>
Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
Sent: Friday, 5 May, 2017 8:22:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Rd] lm() gives different results to lm.ridge() and SPSS
Dear Nick,
On 2017-05-05, 9:40 AM, "
: Friday, May 05, 2017 22:35
To: r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: RE: [Rd] lm() gives different results to lm.ridge() and SPSS
Totally agree that standardizing the interaction term is nonsense. But in all
fairness, SPSS doesn't do that. In fact, the 'REGRESSION' command in SPSS
doesn't compute any
: Re: [Rd] lm() gives different results to lm.ridge() and SPSS
Dear Nick,
On 2017-05-05, 9:40 AM, "R-devel on behalf of Nick Brown"
<r-devel-boun...@r-project.org on behalf of nick.br...@free.fr> wrote:
>>I conjecture that something in the vicinity of
>> res <-
iginal Message -
>
>From: "peter dalgaard" <pda...@gmail.com>
>To: "Viechtbauer Wolfgang (SP)"
><wolfgang.viechtba...@maastrichtuniversity.nl>, "Nick Brown"
><nick.br...@free.fr>
>Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
>Sent: Friday, 5 May,
m: "peter dalgaard" <pda...@gmail.com>
To: "Viechtbauer Wolfgang (SP)" <wolfgang.viechtba...@maastrichtuniversity.nl>,
"Nick Brown" <nick.br...@free.fr>
Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
Sent: Friday, 5 May, 2017 3:33:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Rd] lm() give
191.html ("Is it perhaps
> the case that x1 and x2 have already been scaled to have standard deviation
> 1? In that case, x1*x2 won't be.")
>
> Best,
> Wolfgang
>
> -Original Message-
> From: R-devel [mailto:r-devel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Nick
vel-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Nick Brown
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 10:40
To: peter dalgaard
Cc: r-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [Rd] lm() gives different results to lm.ridge() and SPSS
Hi,
Here is (I hope) all the relevant output from R.
> mean(s1$ZDEPRESSION, na.rm=T) [1] -1.041
Nick
- Original Message -
From: "peter dalgaard" <pda...@gmail.com>
To: "Nick Brown" <nick.br...@free.fr>
Cc: "Simon Bonner" <sbonn...@uwo.ca>, r-devel@r-project.org
Sent: Friday, 5 May, 2017 10:02:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Rd] lm
epartment of Statistical and Actuarial Sciences/Department of Biology
> University of Western Ontario
>
> Office: Western Science Centre rm 276
>
> Email: sbonn...@uwo.ca | Telephone: 519-661-2111 x88205 | Fax: 519-661-3813
> Twitter: @bonnerstatslab | Website:
> http:/
bers
have no particular external meaning in lm.ridge().
Kind regards,
Nick
- Original Message -
From: "Simon Bonner" <sbonn...@uwo.ca>
To: "Nick Brown" <nick.br...@free.fr>, r-devel@r-project.org
Sent: Thursday, 4 May, 2017 7:07:33 PM
Subject: RE: [Rd] lm() give
Behalf Of Nick
> Brown
> Sent: May 4, 2017 10:29 AM
> To: r-devel@r-project.org
> Subject: [Rd] lm() gives different results to lm.ridge() and SPSS
>
> Hallo,
>
> I hope I am posting to the right place. I was advised to try this list by Ben
> Bolker
> (https://t
Um, the link to StackOverflow does not seem to contain the same question. It
does contain a stern warning not to use the $coef component of lm.ridge...
Is it perhaps the case that x1 and x2 have already been scaled to have standard
deviation 1? In that case, x1*x2 won't be.
Also notice that
On 04/05/2017 10:28 AM, Nick Brown wrote:
Hallo,
I hope I am posting to the right place. I was advised to try this list by Ben
Bolker (https://twitter.com/bolkerb/status/859909918446497795). I also posted
this question to StackOverflow
14 matches
Mail list logo
