Message-ID: <20030411155530.70990.qmail@web41101.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: 2003-04-11T15:55:30Z
From: Rishabh Gupta
Subject: multiple numerical variables in aov
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304111548350.21223-100000@gannet.stats>
Prof,
It is true that you sent me the email earlier but the way that my email is sorted, Chuck's emails
were at the top of my list and hence I read it and responded to it first.
With respect to providing me with *all* the info, Chuck did this also although he did so in two
differnt emails. He seems to have CCed only one of them two the r-help mailing list though.
Finally, my follow up question was about something that was mentioned in Chuck's email but was not
in yours.
THANK YOU
Rishabh
--- Prof Brian Ripley <ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Rishabh Gupta wrote:
>
> > Thanks very much for your help. Just a follow up question..
>
> Although you had been told precisely that earlier, for some reason I don't
> get any thanks.
>
> > Like I said I was using aov() instead of anova(). I want to maintain maximum compatability
> with
> > what I've been using so far and I notice that manova() is just a wrapper to
> > aov().
>
> Notice a bit harder. The `wrapper' changes the class, and summary.manova
> does all the work.
>
> > How important
> > is it to use summary(......, test="Wilks") exactly, do you think that the default test
> statistic
> > would be sufficient.
>
> Sufficient for what? The default test is the default for a good reason.
>
> > Once again, many thanks for your help.
>
> Once again, it is not polite to ignore others who give you the same help,
> especially when it comes from the person who provided you with *all* of
> this.
>
> --
> Brian D. Ripley, ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk
> Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
> University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self)
> 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA)
> Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595
>