home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20 / NN_1992_20.iso / spool / sci / math / stat / 1833 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-09-09  |  952 b 
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!news.tufts.edu!sage.hnrc.tufts.edu!jerry
  2. From: jerry@nutmeg.hnrc.tufts.edu (Jerry Dallal)
  3. Newsgroups: sci.math.stat
  4. Subject: Re: Least Square Errors
  5. Message-ID: <1992Sep9.142722.353@nutmeg.hnrc.tufts.edu>
  6. Date: 9 Sep 92 19:27:22 GMT
  7. References: <1992Sep9.150541.15735@cbfsb.cb.att.com> <1992Sep9.142202.352@nutmeg.hnrc.tufts.edu>
  8. Organization: USDA HNRC at Tufts University
  9. Lines: 10
  10.  
  11. In article <1992Sep9.142202.352@nutmeg.hnrc.tufts.edu>, I wrote:
  12.  
  13. <some stuff . . .>
  14.  
  15. As a post script, let me add that if the data were within sampling variability
  16. of the fitted curve, that is, I were confident that this was not a case of
  17. model failure, I would seriously consider fitting the constrained model.
  18. The consideration would revolve around whether the response should be *exactly*
  19. 0 at X=20.  I don't know enough about your problem to make that judgement by
  20. myself.
  21.