Re: Do you want it?
- From: "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Gr0uper@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 18 Aug 2006 08:56:33 -0700
Greg Heath wrote:
Greg Heath wrote:
Reef Fish wrote:
Greg Heath wrote:
Reef Fish wrote:
Greg Heath wrote:
Reef Fish wrote:
I think Greg's attention span is good only for a few lines. So, I'll
snip all except those few line:
I think the emphasis in a "sample variance" is that it is obtained from
a SAMPLE of data values. The criterion of estimation does not
alter the fact that they are all called "sample variance", as a short
for of "sample estimate of the population sigma under criterion #".
What modifications to above discussion result when the population
mean, M, is known and the unbiased estimate for the covariance
matrix is
S = Sum(Xi-M)(Xi-M)'/N ?
Hope this helps.
You should snip that line from your sig file. What you post seldom
helps anyone.
That's debatable.
In this case, you're asking a question that is already
answered.
I inferred that it had been answered. However, I can't find where it
had been directly asked. Therefore I made it a point to get a direct
answer to a direct question. In particular,
"Does any part of the sample variance discussion change when
the population mean is used instead of the sample mean?"
Simple direct question asked.
Simple direct answer expected, i.e., either "No" or "Yes, because ...".
A bit too advanced for you to figure out the logic, isn't it, that the
answer is "NO" ?
I figured the answer had to be NO. However, I was not absolutely
100% sure. Therefore, for my benefit as well as others, I wanted
a direct answer.
You S came from a SAMPLE didn't it?
Of course. However, that's not the point. See the word SAMPLE?
But that WAS the whole point.
That was YOUR point...which was well made. However, I
was trying to clarify a condition upon which previous replies
"appeared" to be based (if not from you, then someone else).
OK. Twice used by Jack the OP.
Then you should have asked Jack, and not MY post which
emphasized only the SAMPLE aspects of it, and then make
more noise about it.
Namely, the repeated phrase "when the population mean is
unknown". If that phrase deserved to be repeated, then
certainly the clarification that nothing changes when the
population mean is used is worthwhile.
Jack can answer you himself. But since your team-mate
Afonso was fixated at N being the "sample variance", and
nothing else, I think Jack's point has to do with the 1 d.f.
difference between whether the population mean is known
or unknown.
That is why they are ALL called SAMPLE variances, for short.
That's why your questions to MY statement were all irrelevant.
Given your HISTORY of being able to drag out the simple
correlation question for months (when you were wrong throughout),
I think the best course (for both of us) is for you NOT to ask ME
any questions, and if you ask, I'll just ignore it.
Your loss. Your free tuition has been withdrawn.
HOWEVER, when you make statistical errors, like those made
by Afonso and others, you'll be treated equally, in order for the
innocent readers NOT to be led astray by your mistakes.
-- Reef Fish Bob.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Do you want it?
- From: Greg Heath
- Re: Do you want it?
- References:
- Re: Do you want it?
- From: Jack Tomsky
- Re: Do you want it?
- From: Reef Fish
- Re: Do you want it?
- From: Greg Heath
- Re: Do you want it?
- From: Reef Fish
- Re: Do you want it?
- From: Greg Heath
- Re: Do you want it?
- From: Reef Fish
- Re: Do you want it?
- From: Greg Heath
- Re: Do you want it?
- From: Greg Heath
- Re: Do you want it?
- Prev by Date: Re: REQUIEM for a Bob Ling´s BLUNDER
- Next by Date: Re: Jack are you a MAN or a RAT?
- Previous by thread: Re: Do you want it?
- Next by thread: Re: Do you want it?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
