On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 02:51:48PM +0200, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> Andrew Robinson wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 10:17:38AM +0200, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew Robinson wrote:
> >>
> >
> >That is a neat idea, thanks, Peter, but it doesn't quite fit the bill.
> >The summary provides
Andrew Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 10:17:38AM +0200, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
Andrew Robinson wrote:
Dear R colleagues,
a friend and I are trying to develop a modest workflow for the problem
of decomposing tests of higher-order terms into interpretable sets of
tests of lower o
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 10:17:38AM +0200, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> Andrew Robinson wrote:
> >Dear R colleagues,
> >
> >a friend and I are trying to develop a modest workflow for the problem
> >of decomposing tests of higher-order terms into interpretable sets of
> >tests of lower order terms with co
Andrew Robinson wrote:
Dear R colleagues,
a friend and I are trying to develop a modest workflow for the problem
of decomposing tests of higher-order terms into interpretable sets of
tests of lower order terms with conditioning.
For example, if the interaction between A (3 levels) and C (2 leve
Dear R colleagues,
a friend and I are trying to develop a modest workflow for the problem
of decomposing tests of higher-order terms into interpretable sets of
tests of lower order terms with conditioning.
For example, if the interaction between A (3 levels) and C (2 levels)
is significant, it ma
5 matches
Mail list logo
