Re: normal distribution and scaling
From: sean kim (sean_incali_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/08/04
- Next message: Ray Koopman: "Re: joint normal distribution integral over the unit sphere"
- Previous message: sean kim: "another stat q"
- In reply to: Ray Koopman: "Re: normal distribution and scaling"
- Next in thread: Richard Ulrich: "Re: normal distribution and scaling"
- Reply: Richard Ulrich: "Re: normal distribution and scaling"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 23:15:52 +0000 (UTC)
On 7 Sep 2004 19:23:57 -0700, Ray Koopman wrote:
>> What effect will this have on coefficient of variance?
>> Does Variance, Standard deviation and coefficient of variance
>> still have same meaning for such artificially made distribution?
>
>SD[n2] = SD[n]
>CV[n2] = ------------------------------ = ???
>Mean[n2] = Mean[n] - minnumber
>
>Mean, Variance, & SD still have their same meanings, but CV is
>meaningful only when all observations are intrinsically positive,
>which excludes shifting such as you are doing.
hi Ray.
but I'm getting rid of the negative numbers... Does this mean that to
look at CV for a normal distrribution (which contains negative numbers
with the mean of 0) is not correct?
Then I can have a *custom distribution* that is a scaled version of
the normal distribution and use that in a perturbation analysis I'm
planing on. At which event I can still lok at CV of scaled Normal
distribution as well as CV of a given output.
or no?
Thanks in advance for any insights
sean
- Next message: Ray Koopman: "Re: joint normal distribution integral over the unit sphere"
- Previous message: sean kim: "another stat q"
- In reply to: Ray Koopman: "Re: normal distribution and scaling"
- Next in thread: Richard Ulrich: "Re: normal distribution and scaling"
- Reply: Richard Ulrich: "Re: normal distribution and scaling"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|