Kevin,
Kudos to you for asking a question that most do not
I have attached an analysis of your residuals for 10 inch called
10inchres.zip. I have also attached our analysis as 10inches.zip. I have
posted some reports for you and added some commentary to help you understand
this all fully.
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:48:34 -0700 Bert Gunter gunter.ber...@gene.com
wrote:
If generalities -- with the attendant risk of occasional specific caveats
and violations -- can be tolerated, then George Box's (paraphrased) comments
of circa 40-50 years ago seem apropos: why do statisticians obsess
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:06:02 -0400 Ben Bolker bol...@ufl.edu wrote:
If transforming your data brings you closer to satisfying
the assumptions of your analytic methods and having a sensible
analysis, then that's good. If it makes things worse, that's bad.
Other choices, depending on the
Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:06:02 -0400 Ben Bolker bol...@ufl.edu wrote:
If transforming your data brings you closer to satisfying
the assumptions of your analytic methods and having a sensible
analysis, then that's good. If it makes things worse, that's bad.
Other
-Original Message-
From: r-help-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-help-boun...@r-project.org] On
Behalf Of David Scott
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:26 AM
To: Karl Ove Hufthammer
Cc: r-h...@stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [R] Non-normal residuals.
Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:25 AM, David Scott d.sc...@auckland.ac.nz wrote:
Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:06:02 -0400 Ben Bolker bol...@ufl.edu wrote:
If transforming your data brings you closer to satisfying
the assumptions of your analytic methods and having a sensible
Kjetil Halvorsen wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:25 AM, David Scott d.sc...@auckland.ac.nz wrote:
Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:06:02 -0400 Ben Bolker bol...@ufl.edu wrote:
If transforming your data brings you closer to satisfying
the assumptions of your analytic methods
...@stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [R] Non-normal residuals.
Kjetil Halvorsen wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:25 AM, David Scott d.sc...@auckland.ac.nz
wrote:
Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:06:02 -0400 Ben Bolker bol...@ufl.edu wrote:
If transforming your data brings you closer
On 29/10/2009, at 10:48 AM, Bert Gunter wrote:
Folks:
If generalities -- with the attendant risk of occasional specific
caveats
and violations -- can be tolerated, then George Box's (paraphrased)
comments
of circa 40-50 years ago seem apropos: why do statisticians obsess
over
, October 28, 2009 3:24 PM
To: Bert Gunter
Cc: R help
Subject: Re: [R] Non-normal residuals.
On 29/10/2009, at 10:48 AM, Bert Gunter wrote:
Folks:
If generalities -- with the attendant risk of occasional specific
caveats
and violations -- can be tolerated, then George Box's (paraphrased
Hello,
I asked a question about what the most likely process to follow if after a
time-series fit is performed the residuals are found to be non-normal. One
peron responded and offered to help if I supplied a sample data set.
Unfortunately now that I have a sample I have lost the emai
rkevinburton wrote:
Hello,
I asked a question about what the most likely process to follow if after a
time-series fit is performed the residuals are found to be non-normal. One
peron responded and offered to help if I supplied a sample data set.
Unfortunately now that I have a sample I
[Taking the liberty of posting back to r-help]
I'd be curious what the particular objections were.
I have one of those annoying it depends answers.
In general, transformation can
(1) change [(de)stabilize] variance across groups/gradients;
(2) (non)normalize residuals;
(3) change
13 matches
Mail list logo
