On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Dieter Menne <dieter.me...@menne-biomed.de> wrote: > Peter Dalgaard <p.dalgaard <at> biostat.ku.dk> writes: > >> Why do so many people have such trouble with the word "reproducible"? We >> can't reproduce that without access to weblog_by_date! > > In a strict sense, the example is "reproducible" as opposite to "spurious". > Reproducible research means that you can get the same results whe you buy > an ultracentrifuge, high-grade chemicals, a safety lab, and a technician > with a golden hand .:)
I think reproducible is the correct word and its meaning should be clear from both its conventional meaning, see link, and the context in which its used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility It is surprising how many posters disregard this basic requirement for a post, clearly stated at the bottom of each message to r-help. ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list 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.
