Difference between revisions of "Talk:Correlation"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(suggestion.) |
(suggestion.) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
I've restored the mathematical section, which is useful for those who want to know the maths. I've also done some general tidying and clarification. Note that the definition that a correlation is only valid if the two variables are ratio variables is too strict; they only need to be continuous variables. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 16:57, 5 January 2009 (EST) | I've restored the mathematical section, which is useful for those who want to know the maths. I've also done some general tidying and clarification. Note that the definition that a correlation is only valid if the two variables are ratio variables is too strict; they only need to be continuous variables. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 16:57, 5 January 2009 (EST) | ||
| − | The unrelated factors section seems to be of very poor quality altogether and I say we just do a full rewrite of the section. Anybody opposed to this suggestion? | + | The unrelated factors section seems to be of very poor quality altogether and I say we just do a full rewrite of the section. Anybody opposed to this suggestion? [[User:Dasonk|Dasonk]] 7:43 12 April 2010 (CST) |
Latest revision as of 00:42, April 13, 2010
Okay, Tory, you take it from here. :-) --Ed Poor Talk 16:22, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Maths restored
I've restored the mathematical section, which is useful for those who want to know the maths. I've also done some general tidying and clarification. Note that the definition that a correlation is only valid if the two variables are ratio variables is too strict; they only need to be continuous variables. HSpalding 16:57, 5 January 2009 (EST)
The unrelated factors section seems to be of very poor quality altogether and I say we just do a full rewrite of the section. Anybody opposed to this suggestion? Dasonk 7:43 12 April 2010 (CST)