# sci.stat.math

**Scale to New Scale for Cut-off Points**,*zstatman***Re: Scale to New Scale for Cut-off Points**,*Art Kendall***Re: Scale to New Scale for Cut-off Points**,*Art Kendall***Re: Scale to New Scale for Cut-off Points**,*Rich Ulrich*

**Gary Sokolich - 2775**,*Gary Sokolisch***527 heads out of 1,000 coin flips redux...**,*DMc***Re: 527 heads out of 1,000 coin flips redux...**,*Rich Ulrich***Re: 527 heads out of 1,000 coin flips redux...**,*DMc***Re: 527 heads out of 1,000 coin flips redux...**,*Rich Ulrich***Re: 527 heads out of 1,000 coin flips redux...**,*DMc***Re: 527 heads out of 1,000 coin flips redux...**,*Ray Koopman***Re: 527 heads out of 1,000 coin flips redux...**,*DMc***Re: 527 heads out of 1,000 coin flips redux...**,*Rich Ulrich***Re: 527 heads out of 1,000 coin flips redux...**,*DMc*

**On conditional probability of an exponential random variable**,*Pietro Costan***Re: Help with understanding outliers**,*Herman Rubin***Re: Help with understanding outliers**,*Stephen Wolstenholme***Re: Help with understanding outliers**,*aruzinsky*- <Possible follow-ups>
**Re: Help with understanding outliers**,*aruzinsky*

**Offset parameter observation time adjustment in logistic regression?**,*Elliot Sprecher***Characterizing a non-deterministic function**,*jgannon***Re: Characterizing a non-deterministic function**,*David Jones*

**generate uniformly distributed float from random bytes**,*Michael Press***Re: generate uniformly distributed float from random bytes**,*Gordon Sande***Re: generate uniformly distributed float from random bytes**,*Michael Press*

**Mathematical Sciences Dept Head, WPI**,*Mayer Humi***Uniform order statistic median**,*Cristiano***Re: Uniform order statistic median**,*Herman Rubin***Re: Uniform order statistic median**,*Cristiano*

**Riffle shuffle of cards**,*Mok-Kong Shen***Re: Riffle shuffle of cards**,*Rich Ulrich*

**solutions manual**,*solutions books***When should I stop the simulation?**,*Cristiano***Re: When should I stop the simulation?**,*Paul***Re: When should I stop the simulation?**,*Rich Ulrich***Re: When should I stop the simulation?**,*Cristiano*

**Variance of Skewness and Kurtosis**,*Havilah***Re: Variance of Skewness and Kurtosis**,*Rich Ulrich***Re: Variance of Skewness and Kurtosis**,*David Jones***Re: Variance of Skewness and Kurtosis**,*Havilah***Re: Variance of Skewness and Kurtosis**,*Ray Koopman***Re: Variance of Skewness and Kurtosis**,*David Jones***Re: Variance of Skewness and Kurtosis**,*Rich Ulrich*

**Re: Variance of Skewness and Kurtosis**,*Havilah*

**degrees of freedom for repeated measures ANOVA**,*David***Comprehensive Test Banks and solution manuals at good prices**,*esolnow***Simple Monte Carlo Simulation to Calculate Value of Pi using Excel (Is this correct?)**,*bab pol***A probability question...**,*stats_now***Re: A probability question...**,*Rich Ulrich***Re: A probability question...**,*stats_now***Re: A probability question...**,*danheyman@xxxxxxxxx***Re: A probability question...**,*stats_now*

**Testing (Graphing) for Normality.**,*First Last***Re: Testing (Graphing) for Normality.**,*David Jones*

**#Comprehensive Test Banks and solution manuals at good prices#**,*esolnow***Update about our Data Science eBook and new Webinar Series**,*datashaping***Re: On discrete random variables**,*aruzinsky*- <Possible follow-ups>
**Re: On discrete random variables**,*Pietro Costan***Re: On discrete random variables**,*aruzinsky***Re: On discrete random variables**,*Herman Rubin***Re: On discrete random variables**,*aruzinsky***Re: On discrete random variables**,*David Jones***Re: On discrete random variables**,*aruzinsky***Re: On discrete random variables**,*Pietro Costan***Re: On discrete random variables**,*aruzinsky***Re: On discrete random variables**,*Barry W Brown***Re: On discrete random variables**,*David Jones***Re: On discrete random variables**,*aruzinsky***Re: On discrete random variables**,*David Jones*

**On random processes**,*Pietro Costan***Formula for Correlation Between Two Lognormal Variables**,*a321654987***Re: Formula for Correlation Between Two Lognormal Variables**,*Ray Koopman*- <Possible follow-ups>
**Re: Formula for Correlation Between Two Lognormal Variables**,*aste***Re: Formula for Correlation Between Two Lognormal Variables**,*aste*

**Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"**,*Ray Koopman***Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"**,*djh***Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"**,*djh*- <Possible follow-ups>
**Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"**,*Ray Koopman***Where the "63" came from**,*djh***Re: Where the "63" came from**,*Ray Koopman***Re: Where the "63" came from**,*djh***Re: Where the "63" came from**,*djh*

**Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"**,*Ray Koopman***Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"**,*djh***Your assessment of current method of computing "u" relative to a given group, e.g. S63**,*djh***Re: Your assessment of current method of computing "u" relative to a given group, e.g. S63**,*Ray Koopman***Re: Your assessment of current method of computing "u" relative to a given group, e.g. S63**,*djh***Correction to presentation of "u" computation method**,*djh***Re: Correction to presentation of "u" computation method**,*Ray Koopman***Re: Correction to presentation of "u" computation method**,*Ray Koopman***Re: Correction to presentation of "u" computation method**,*djh***Clarification of the term "combined probability" in assertion (I) in previous message**,*djh***Please hold the fort ... I think I now see what you're saying re "u"**,*djh***OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate whether it correctly computes "u"**,*djh***Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate whether it correctly computes "u"**,*Ray Koopman***Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate whether it correctly computes "u"**,*Ray Koopman***Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate whether it correctly computes "u"**,*djh***Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate whether it correctly computes "u"**,*Ray Koopman***Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate whether it correctly computes "u"**,*Ray Koopman***Re: OK - here is exactly what my code is doing ... please evaluate whether it correctly computes "u"**,*djh***But I guess the u=0 problem would go away if we used u/c, e/c, and L/c instead ....**,*djh***Also, "e" has no meaning for segments in which u = 0 because N-yes = 0.**,*djh***Correction of an egregiously bad "simplifying" assumption regarding "c" ...**,*djh***Re: Correction of an egregiously bad "simplifying" assumption regarding "c" ...**,*djh***Re: Correction of an egregiously bad "simplifying" assumption regarding "c" ...**,*Ray Koopman***It's "rubber meets the road" time, Ray .... are these two regressions sufficiently "different" ?**,*djh***Restatement (improved) of previous correlation results after two dicodon/UCP table errors corrected**,*djh***Re: Restatement (improved) of previous correlation results after two dicodon/UCP table errors corrected**,*Ray Koopman***Re: Restatement (improved) of previous correlation results after two dicodon/UCP table errors corrected**,*djh***Re: Restatement (improved) of previous correlation results after two dicodon/UCP table errors corrected**,*Ray Koopman**djh**Ray Koopman***1) thanks for the additional summary stats; 2) next critical question requiring your evaluation**,*djh***Re: 1) thanks for the additional summary stats; 2) next critical question requiring your evaluation**,*Ray Koopman***Re: 1) thanks for the additional summary stats; 2) next critical question requiring your evaluation**,*djh***Re: 1) thanks for the additional summary stats; 2) next critical question requiring your evaluation**,*Ray Koopman***Re: 1) thanks for the additional summary stats; 2) next critical question requiring your evaluation**,*djh***New question: could u on c*L (no logs) be logarithmic (over ALL length intervals)**,*gimpeltf***Re: New question: could u on c*L (no logs) be logarithmic (over ALL length intervals)**,*Ray Koopman***Re: New question: could u on c*L (no logs) be logarithmic (over ALL length intervals)**,*gimpeltf***Re: New question: could u on c*L (no logs) be logarithmic (over ALL length intervals)**,*djh***Critical question re proper way to argue from slope CI overlaps/non-overlaps among S63, S63R, and C711**,*djh***Re: Critical question re proper way to argue from slope CI overlaps/non-overlaps among S63, S63R, and C711**,*Ray Koopman***How stupid am I? Of course I had the Y's and the N's reversed ...**,*djh***Re: How stupid am I? Of course I had the Y's and the N's reversed ...**,*Ray Koopman***Re: How stupid am I? Of course I had the Y's and the N's reversed ...**,*djh***Correction: there is a slope CI overlap for a1 len 25 ln(c/u) on ln(c/L) for S63 vs S63R**,*djh***Current Status and New Question re ln(c/u) on ln(c/L)**,*djh***Re: Current Status and New Question re ln(c/u) on ln(c/L)**,*djh***Re: Current Status and New Question re ln(c/u) on ln(c/L)**,*djh***All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*djh***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*djh***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*djh***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*Ray Koopman***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*Ray Koopman***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*Ray Koopman***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*djh***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*Ray Koopman***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*djh***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*Ray Koopman***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*djh***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*Ray Koopman***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*djh***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*Ray Koopman***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*djh***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*djh***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*Ray Koopman***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*djh***I see what you're saying now about the length intervals - it's MY code that has shifted the intervals down !**,*djh***Since I'm rerunning a1 and a3, do you have any thoughts on how I should run ln(c/u) on ln(c/L) ?**,*djh***I'm taking a day or two to automate some error-prone manual processing steps**,*djh***Would it be possible for me to do the "set-wise" regression significance comparisons on my side?**,*djh**Message not available***One dumb question (just this one I hope) about getting p's from t's ...**,*djh***Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK to use here?**,*djh***Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK to use here?**,*Ray Koopman***Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK to use here?**,*Gaj Vidmar***Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK to use here?**,*djh***Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK to use here?**,*djh***Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK to use here?**,*Art Kendall***Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK to use here?**,*djh***Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK to use here?**,*Art Kendall***Re: Regarding previous post, would Excel TDIST function still be OK to use here?**,*djh***Permissible comparative sizes of N's for sets being compared by your t-test (and correction) algorithm**,*djh***Re: Permissible comparative sizes of N's for sets being compared by your t-test (and correction) algorithm**,*Ray Koopman***Next question: df's at each "layer" in a "Russian egg" significance testing protocol**,*djh***Re: Next question: df's at each "layer" in a "Russian egg" significance testing protocol**,*Ray Koopman***Re: Next question: df's at each "layer" in a "Russian egg" significance testing protocol**,*djh***Typo in previous post - test-count = 24, not 48**,*djh***Re: Next question: df's at each "layer" in a "Russian egg" significance testing protocol**,*Ray Koopman***Re: Next question: df's at each "layer" in a "Russian egg" significance testing protocol**,*djh***But we COULD try t-testing corresponding sets of residuals per len interval, if you think it valid to do so**,*djh***Prelim results for ln(c/u) on ln(c/L) for S63 computed for u_low, u_high, and u_all**,*djh***Re: Prelim results for ln(c/u) on ln(c/L) for S63 computed for u_low, u_high, and u_all**,*djh***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*djh***Re: All a1 data now complete - will be sending you summary and detail file later today**,*djh*

**The expected frequency tables for S60, C537, S119, and C1058 are all OK - I've double-checked them.**,*djh***Re: The relationship of UCP's to "u"**,*Ray Koopman*