Re: KRS book: Geology

On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 02:05:34 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote: ui0er1haaqgjv65jvqcrj1nb8cf7v5pr74@xxxxxxx,
>> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>>> Please - please - read the book if you are you are going to
>>>> continue consider sounding off.
>>>> Ojakangas plotted six different types of greywacke on his
>>>> particular triangle diagram and almost certainly examined
>>>> many more specimens he did not consider worth plotting.
>>>
>>> That would be a very unscientific procedure,
>>> since a (triangle) scatter diagram is not only
>>> meant to show similarities, but also differences.
>>> I am sure Ojakangas, if he is a serious scientistis,
>>> would not very happy with your comment above.
>>
>> I understand him to be looking for similarities. When examining
>> samples widly different from that of the KRS I would expect he would
>> discard them from further consideration. He was looking for, and
>> plotting, samples which were similar.
>
>Why plotting similar samples?
>A triangle scattergram is used to show the relativer
>composition of samples based on three elements.
>You feed the program with all relevant data and look
>for clustering and _differences_.
>You don't feed it with similar samples. If Ojakangas
>did that, then there is every reason to distrust him.

Aah. I see the root of our problem. You think the scattergram referred
to is Ojakangas's working diagram. I think it is the obe he used to
plot the alternatives closest to the that of the KRS.



Eric Stevens

.