Jump to content

Talk:Correlation correction for attenuation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question

[edit]

is it better to use your TCG offset to compensate for material and standard compatibility or material attenuation correction to equalize the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.75.2 (talkcontribs) 16:59, 7 February 2007 207.235.75.2

Merge discussion

[edit]

The suggestion is to merge Correction for attenuation and Disattenuation as these are essentially the same topics. I envisage using Correction for attenuation for the title, but with the main version of text taken from Disattenuation. Comments? Melcombe (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger done, but still many problems. Melcombe (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the disattenuated correlation

[edit]

According to the formula in the article, it seems that the absolute value of disattenuated correlation would end up greater than 1. Am I right? 203.98.92.232 (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs attention

[edit]

The first paragraph states:

" The correlation between two sets of parameters [...]"

However, in a frequentist framework, parameters do not have a distribution (hence, they have no correlation). This occurs in other places in the article and needs some tidying up.

Tal Galili (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]