On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Boris Steipe <boris.ste...@utoronto.ca>
wrote:
> Ming is right.
...
Having started all this trouble, I suppose I should offer a modest
explanation.
The OP was indeed "right" in the sense that the column heading did not
indicate the correct _units_ for the values. I suppose that "kilopounds"
would be the correct units if such a unit was acceptable to the relevant
standards committee. As Boris noted, lb/1000 is (sort of) the
transformation used to get the values. Given the burning interest in this
distinction between units (as used to explicitly back transform the values)
and and explanatory labels (how did these values come to be?) I should
state that the objection I refrained from adding to my original answer was,
'Why didn't they just leave the values in the initial units?"
I was reminded of a long past physics lecturer's favorite units of velocity
- furlongs per fortnight.
Jim
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
