Re: [R] A doubt about "lm" and the meaning of its summary

2008-08-19 Thread Charles C. Berry
L PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [R] A doubt about "lm" and the meaning of its summary To: r-help@r-project.org Received: Tuesday, 19 August, 2008, 4:31 AM I have a conceptual problem (sort of). Maybe there's a simple solution, maybe not

Re: [R] A doubt about "lm" and the meaning of its summary

2008-08-18 Thread Moshe Olshansky
Hi Alberto, Please disregard my previous note - I probably had a black-out!!! --- On Tue, 19/8/08, Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [R] A doubt about "lm" and the meaning of its summary > To:

Re: [R] A doubt about "lm" and the meaning of its summary

2008-08-18 Thread Moshe Olshansky
Hi Alberto, In your second case the linear model y = a*x + b + error does not hold. --- On Tue, 19/8/08, Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [R] A doubt about "lm" and the meaning of its summar

[R] A doubt about "lm" and the meaning of its summary

2008-08-18 Thread Alberto Monteiro
I have a conceptual problem (sort of). Maybe there's a simple solution, maybe not. First, let me explain the test case that goes ok. Let x be a (fixed) n-dimensional vector. I simulate a lot of linear models, y = m x + c + error, then I do a lot of regressions. As expected, the estimated value