Difference between revisions of "Talk:Correlation"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(It's all yours now. I've donated my 2 cents.) |
(→Maths restored: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Okay, Tory, you take it from here. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:22, 13 October 2007 (EDT) | Okay, Tory, you take it from here. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 16:57, 5 January 2009 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 21:57, January 5, 2009
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)