standardization

Philip Bermingham <pberming at research.ryerson.ca> writes:

SAS Enterprise Miner recommendeds to standardize using X / STDEV(X)
versus [X ? mean(X)] / STDEV(X)

Any thoughts on this? Pros Cons

When??? 

This makes absolutely no sense out of context.

O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Blegdamsvej 3  
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     2200 Cph. N   
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk)             FAX: (+45) 35327907

SAS Enterprise Miner recommendeds to standardize using X / STDEV(X)
versus [X ? mean(X)] / STDEV(X)

This makes absolutely no sense out of context.

To paraphrase Tanenbaum: "The nice thing about standardization is that 
there's so many ways to do it".

Baz

[[

Free On-line Dictionary of Computing:

Andrew Tanenbaum, in his Computer Networks book, once said,
"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of
them to choose from",

]]

Barry Rowlingson <B.Rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk> writes:

"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of
them to choose from",

Curiously enough, the same quote came up today on dk.edb.system.unix
in the context of translations.

O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Blegdamsvej 3  
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     2200 Cph. N   
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk)             FAX: (+45) 35327907

Barry Rowlingson <B.Rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk> writes:

"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of
them to choose from",

Curiously enough, the same quote came up today on dk.edb.system.unix
in the context of translations. 

"The nice thing about coincidences is that there are so many ways for 
them to happen."

Jim