NavList:

   

Reply

On Oct 26, 2004, at 8:34 PM, Alexandre Eremenko wrote:

>> So it was a borderline case,
>> but one where conventional wisdom says rejection is OK.
>
> Borderline by the standard deviation criterion.
> But there are other criteria for rejection (besides
> convential wisdom).
>
> In a series where the distance SHOULD INCREASE (this I knew
> in advance, of course),
> and 5 of the 6 observations clearly follow increasing pattern
> but one does not (and substantially!) this one had to be rejected.
> If one accepts this one
> (I am always talking of my particular series of numbers!)
> one had to reject the TWO previous ones.
>
> This was my (almost unconscious) argument.
> I did not compute any standard deviations. This was just
> plane common sense.
> On the other hand (as a scientist:-) I carefully recorded it
> to be able to reduce it separately when needed.
>

I believe you might find that the two procedures are equivalent,
although yours is harder to quantify.  Remember Frank Reed's posted
lunar that was almost simultaneous with mine last month?  There was a
slight bump in the steady change in distance.  It was quite small and
he accepted it.

I also wasn't suggesting that standard deviations be calculated to
reject data points, but rather was using a convenient metric ready at
hand with the reduced data.

   

Reply