[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
Elizabeth Allred <lizard@hsph.harvard.edu> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: RE: RE: RE: A simple but really hard question |

Date |
Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:05:41 -0500 |

Yes, I agree! I vote for 16 quantiles. Save sedeciles for Trivial Pursuit... Nick Cox wrote: > > Li, Wenjun > > > > Thanks, everyone. A friend has suggested to use "double-octiles" for > > quantiles based on division into 16 groups of equal > > frequency. How do you > > think about this? "Sedeciles", as suggested by Nick Cox > > [and Nick Winter], is a possible name too. > > "Double-octiles" is a mix of English out of French out of > Latin and straight Latin. These linguistic mongrels > are a bad idea. (Like "television"...) > > I still vote against a new term, as you are asking. > > Nick > n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk > > * > * For searches and help try: > * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html > * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq > * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: RE: RE: RE: A simple but really hard question***From:*"Don Spady" <dspady@ualberta.ca>

**Re: st: RE: RE: RE: A simple but really hard question***From:*Marcello Pagano <pagano@hsph.harvard.edu>

**References**:**st: RE: RE: RE: A simple but really hard question***From:*"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: RE: RE: A simple but really hard question** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: RE: RE: RE: A simple but really hard question** - Previous by thread:
**st: RE: RE: RE: A simple but really hard question** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: RE: RE: RE: A simple but really hard question** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |