# sci.stat.math

**iPhone App To Help You Learn Spanish Faster By Using Flashcards With Pictures**,*j8gjkwnmlt***Radial basis function**,*"T. vor der Brück"***Re: Radial basis function**,*"T. vor der Brück"*

**Has anyone used the open source time series analysis package "Cronos"?**,*djh***Mathamatical thought on Voting System**,*Padmanabh Limaye***Re: Mathamatical thought on Voting System**,*Dave***Re: Mathamatical thought on Voting System**,*Rich Ulrich*

**Re: Mathamatical thought on Voting System**,*Ray Koopman***Re: Mathamatical thought on Voting System**,*Ray Koopman*

**Re: Mathamatical thought on Voting System**,*Padmanabh Limaye*

**iPhone App To Help You Learn Chinese (Mandarin) Faster By Using Flashcards With Pictures**,*g6dtjrhsr4***"z" correlation coefficient (?)**,*Vlad***Re: "z" correlation coefficient (?)**,*Dave***Re: "z" correlation coefficient (?)**,*Ray Koopman***Re: "z" correlation coefficient (?)**,*Vlad***Re: "z" correlation coefficient (?)**,*Art Kendall***Re: "z" correlation coefficient (?)**,*Ray Koopman***Re: "z" correlation coefficient (?)**,*Art Kendall*

**Re: interpolation formula**,*Art Kendall***evomusart 2013: 3rd Call for Papers**,*EvoMUSART***Math in groups**,*Dave***Re: Derivation of Ito Lemma**,*Dave***Re: Derivation of Ito Lemma**,*Paul***Re: Derivation of Ito Lemma**,*Paul**Message not available***Re: Derivation of Ito Lemma**,*Paul*

**Geometric distribution?**,*qguy***Re: Geometric distribution?**,*qguy***Re: Geometric distribution?**,*Herman Rubin*

**ignore - test**,*qguy***Re: nonlinear optimization problem with constraints**,*Gordon Sande**Message not available***Re: nonlinear optimization problem with constraints**,*Gordon Sande*

*Message not available**Message not available***Re: nonlinear optimization problem with constraints**,*Herman Rubin*

**[no subject]**,*Unknown***lit/refs on bias of chi-sq. goodness of fit test due to fractional expected values**,*Schorsch_MCMLX***Potential problem with the "varianceOfEstimate" method in the LineFit module**,*djh***[no subject]**,*Unknown***Re: How to interpret Spearman's rank coefficient ?!**,*Vlad***Re: I trust your ability to see statistical clarity through the messiness**,*Ray Koopman***Thanks for characterizing the nature of the d.v to look for ...**,*djh***Correction of two typo's in prior post**,*djh***Re: Thanks for characterizing the nature of the d.v to look for ...**,*Ray Koopman***If the results herein are technically legit, then you're easy a genius, or very very experienced, or both.**,*djh***Re: If the results herein are technically legit, then you're easy a genius, or very very experienced, or both.**,*Ray Koopman***Re: If the results herein are technically legit, then you're easy a genius, or very very experienced, or both.**,*halitsky . d***Re: If the results herein are technically legit, then you're easy a genius, or very very experienced, or both.**,*Ray Koopman***Sorry - I misunderstood your term "error variances" in your post of 8/24@823.**,*djh**Message not available***A technical problem with Anderson's LineFit module is what confused me about the "variances"**,*djh***Re: A technical problem with Anderson's LineFit module is what confused me about the "variances"**,*Ray Koopman**Message not available**Message not available***Re: Can N-related loss of confidence be quantified for each result of your original custom heteroscedastic T?**,*Ray Koopman**Message not available**Message not available***Re: PS - Our control set expansion from 1 to 3 is not only scientifically justifiable, but scientifically obligatory ....**,*Ray Koopman***Sorry for the obscure presentation of the sets - here's a clear "laydown"**,*djh**Message not available***Re: New example summary and detail files**,*Ray Koopman***Re: New example summary and detail files**,*djh**Message not available***Thanks... three questions re your last post (quickly answerable, I hope ...)**,*djh***Re: Thanks... three questions re your last post (quickly answerable, I hope ...)**,*Ray Koopman***Thanks (correction of variance and CIs of slope differences)**,*djh***Could you check (and explain) this “negative t” case?**,*djh***Re: Could you check (and explain) this “negative t” case?**,*Ray Koopman***Re: Could you check (and explain) this “negative t” case?**,*djh**Message not available***Re: Custom heteroscedastic test is working in Perl but with integer "ft" and 6 decimal places for returned p;**,*Ray Koopman**Message not available***Re: Yes - the opensource lib of Perl math modules does have a betainc ...**,*Ray Koopman***Re: Yes - the opensource lib of Perl math modules does have a betainc ...**,*djh***If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are encouraging (I think)**,*djh***Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are encouraging (I think)**,*Ray Koopman***Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are encouraging (I think)**,*halitsky . d***Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are encouraging (I think)**,*Ray Koopman***But 1.6457 is NOT the value you want , correct ? (Because Excel T.INV.T returns your 1.96127986 )**,*djh***Re: But 1.6457 is NOT the value you want , correct ? (Because Excel T.INV.T returns your 1.96127986 )**,*Ray Koopman***Yes - you're correct! - Even for the "grown-up" inverse t, I have to give it 1 minus HALF of (1 minus desired CI)**,*djh***Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are encouraging (I think)**,*Bruce Weaver***Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are encouraging (I think)**,*Ray Koopman***Re: If I've done the CI's correctly, then initial results are encouraging (I think)**,*Bruce Weaver***Which do YOU think are the "n independent parameters" for the multiple CI evaluation?**,*djh***Re: Which do YOU think are the "n independent parameters" for the multiple CI evaluation?**,*Ray Koopman***OK. Then seven separate analyes with n = 12 for the ".95^(1/n)" CIs.**,*djh***Re: OK. Then seven separate analyes with n = 12 for the ".95^(1/n)" CIs.**,*Ray Koopman***Re: OK. Then seven separate analyes with n = 12 for the ".95^(1/n)" CIs.**,*djh***Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"**,*halitsky . d***Re: Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"**,*Ray Koopman***Re: Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"**,*djh***Re: Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"**,*Ray Koopman***Re: Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"**,*Ray Koopman***Yes - your last instructions give me same tCI's as yours - sorry for my confusion**,*djh***Re: Am sending three files offline with n=1,12,73 for ".95^(1/n)"**,*Ray Koopman***k-2 for Re, Ru coeff's vs k-3 for Reu coeffs**,*djh***k = 3 changes df from ~1804 to ~1785 for the "euSu" coefficient**,*djh***Am sending a zip file with complete CI results for a1 fold across all cells of the design ...**,*djh***Had you already looked at the data or did you simply have a great experience-based hunch?**,*djh***CI Partition analysis for all seven co-efficients (a1 fold only)**,*djh***I've got the CI data for the other 5 folds, but don't want to post them if the "thirds" approach is wrong ...**,*djh***Re: I've got the CI data for the other 5 folds, but don't want to post them if the "thirds" approach is wrong ...**,*Ray Koopman***1) Thanks for the algorithm! 2) your initial a1 plot should please both JRF and AML**,*djh***Since your plot was for the eI coefficient, my previous comments were relative only to THAT coefficient**,*djh***Here are the plots for all 7 coeff's for the a1 fold, along with some comments/questions**,*djh***Re: Here are the plots for all 7 coeff's for the a1 fold, along with some comments/questions**,*Ray Koopman***CI plots for a3 fold**,*djh***CI plots for b1 fold**,*djh***CI plots for b47 fold**,*djh***CI plots for c1 fold**,*djh***CI plots for c2 fold**,*djh***Tabulation of S:C cell pairs which correlate with non-overlapping CI's**,*djh***Re: Tabulation of S:C cell pairs which correlate with non-overlapping CI's**,*Ray Koopman***OK - then here are four specific questions involving patterns (not counts) of significant results**,*djh***Please discard all posted CI results!! My computation of LL and HH was wrong !**,*djh***Re: Please discard all posted CI results!! My computation of LL and HH was wrong !**,*Ray Koopman***Thanks for that clarification: will recompute with 72 CI's per plot and (LL,HH) per each 72**,*djh***I've sent you the CI plots per coefficient, and am now ready to throw in the towel**,*djh***Re: I've sent you the CI plots per coefficient, and am now ready to throw in the towel**,*Ray Koopman***Re: I've sent you the CI plots per coefficient, and am now ready to throw in the towel**,*djh***Please review the eS, eI, and euI plots that I've sent you offline for the "uA" design (multiplicity = 36)**,*djh***Re: Please review the eS, eI, and euI plots that I've sent you offline for the "uA" design (multiplicity = 36)**,*Ray Koopman***Thanks for taking a look at the uA plots; please permit some questions about the custom t-test itself**,*djh***one more question (sorry!): can N be validly regressed on (e,u,L)?**,*djh***Re: one more question (sorry!): can N be validly regressed on (e,u,L)?**,*Ray Koopman***Re: Thanks for taking a look at the uA plots; please permit some questions about the custom t-test itself**,*Ray Koopman***OK, then please do NOT misinterpret my motivation for asking this next question ....**,*djh***Re: OK, then please do NOT misinterpret my motivation for asking this next question ....**,*Ray Koopman***Re: OK, then please do NOT misinterpret my motivation for asking this next question ....**,*djh***When a small set of p's passes the IOTT, is a Bonferroni correction still required?**,*djh***Can the argument from means be tightened by t-testing means “across N, R” as well as “across S, C”?**,*djh***Augmented tables for remaining five folds (results of t-testing mean(ln(e)) ...**,*djh***Before doing the other five folds, I should state "a priori" what Jacques/Arthur would like to see ...**,*djh***One other "a prior" note re Jacques' and Arthur's devoutest hope ...**,*djh*

**4160 Solution manuals & Test banks to Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Books**,*abnew17***4160 Solution manuals & Test banks to Environmental Engineering, Earth and Environmental Sciences Books**,*abnew17***4160 Solution manuals & Test banks to Civil Engineering and Architecture Books**,*abnew17***4160 Solution manuals & Test banks to Physics & Astronomy Books**,*abnew17***4160 Solution manuals & Test banks to Math, Statistics and Probability Books - part2**,*abnew17***4160 Solution manuals & Test banks to Math, Statistics and Probability Books - part1**,*abnew17***4160 Solution manuals & Test Banks to Electrical, Electronics and Computer Engineering Books - part2**,*abnew17***4160 Solution manuals & Test Banks to Electrical, Electronics and Computer Engineering Books - part1**,*abnew17***4160 Solution manuals to Mechanics, Mechanical Engineering and Aerospace Engineering Books**,*abnew17*