my problem actually arised with fitting the data to the weibulldistribution,
where it is hard to see, if the proposed parameterestimates make sense.
data1:2743;4678;21427;6194;10286;1505;12811;2161;6853;2625;14542;694;11491;
?? ?? ?? ?? ?? 14924;28640;17097;2136;5308;3477;91301;11488;3860;64114;14334
how am I supposed to know what starting values i have to take?
i get different parameterestimates depending on the starting values i choose,
this shouldn't be, no? how am i supposed to know, which the "right" estimates
should be?
scale shape
7.81875000 0.12500000
(4.18668905) (0.01803669)
#if i use the lognormaldistribution instead, i would get the same estimates,
#no matter, what starting values i choose.
#or if i tried it so fare with mle(), i got different values depending on the
#starting values too, i use the trial and error method to find appropriate
#starting values, but i am sure, there is a clear way how to do it, no?
#shouldn't i actually get more or less the same parameterestimates with both
#methods?
library(stats4)
There were 50 or more warnings (use warnings() to see the first 50)
summary(est)
Maximum likelihood estimation
Call:
mle(minuslogl = ll, start = list(alfa = 5, beta = 17))
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error
alfa 0.002143305 0.000378592
beta 0.660359789 0.026433665
-2 log L: 511.1296
thank you very much for all your comments, it really helps me to get further!
Nadja