variance of a scalar (PR#546)

I thought that might be the reason.  There is no mention of using n-1
rather than n in the denominator on the help page.  Perhaps that might be
added?

Um. What professional statistics package uses n, then?  Are you
suggesting that there is serious room for doubt?

I remember that my Casio calculator (in statistics mode) had some way
of setting the denominator to be n-1 or n so obviously someone at Casio
decided to cover both options. I was always taught to use n-1 but
I've been too lazy to work through the derivations and figure out why
one is better than the other.

I agree that a single sample cannot tell you anything about the variance
which is a good enough reason to convince me to keep using n-1.

	- Tel

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._