[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
## Re: covariances in glm.c

**From**: |
John Darrington |

**Subject**: |
Re: covariances in glm.c |

**Date**: |
Wed, 9 Feb 2011 18:04:03 +0000 |

**User-agent**: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |

I thought I already replied to this, but it doesn't seem to have
shown up in the archive. I'll try again:
So far as I'm aware, the current code should generate the correct
covariance matrix with the following caveat: There are no interactions (yet),
or more acurately, no interactions with more than one variable.
So your command
GLM v0 by v1 v2
/INTERCEPT = include
has an implicit subcommand:
/DESIGN = v1 v2.
The default SPSS behaviour has the implicit subcommand
/DESIGN = v1 v2 v1*v2.
Which makes things more complex - but not much. We can deal
with the interactions later, once we have the sums of squares correct.
J'
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 09:08:34PM -0500, Jason Stover wrote:
I'm testing the patch for type 3 sums of squares in glm.c
with this syntax:
data list list / v0 to v2.
begin data
3.2 1 1
3.1 1 1
3.3 1 2
3.4 1 2
3.2 1 3
3.3 1 3
3.3 1 4
3.2 1 4
2.8 2 1
2.9 2 1
3.3 2 2
3.0 2 2
3.1 2 3
3.2 2 3
3.2 2 4
3.1 2 4
end data
GLM v0 by v1 v2
/INTERCEPT = include.
I'm getting some covariances that don't look right.
Is glm.c currently supposed to get the covariances correct
from such syntax? (Or is there something wrong with the syntax?)
-Jason
_______________________________________________
pspp-dev mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
--
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://pgp.mit.edu or any PGP keyserver for public key.

**
**`signature.asc`

*Description:* Digital signature