Hi Bill I don't think we're wasting anyone's time. I think we've both made the same mistake. We both used the Excel function, yes, but with insufficient thought. The correlation coefficient is designed to produce answers that lie between -1 and +1. It requires the summing of the products of the differences between attributes and the population mean for those attributes (not the mean of the attributes for each individual). Comparing an individual marker with the mean of the marker scores of that individual is meaningless. Sandy -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bill Howard Sent: 12 July 2011 12:43 To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Tree Sandy, One of us is confused and I don't think it is I! The Excel function for correlation is the one I used. Since Excel does it within its own 'black box', I have checked it out with statistical algorithms and find it to be correct. Enough of this! I think we are wasting the list readers' time. - Bye from Bill Howard On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Sandy Paterson wrote: > Really? > > Actually, they are garbage. In correlation, the numerator is the sum of the > products of (person A value of attribute - mean attribute value of > population) x (person B value of attribute - mean attribute value of > population). > > In what I set up in the spreadsheet, this is not the case. So they are not > correlation coefficients at all. They may have some meaning, I don't know, > but they look like garbage to me. > > > Sandy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bill Howard > Sent: 11 July 2011 14:46 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Tree > > To the list: > > Yes, Sandy has done the calculation right. > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message R1b1c7 Research and Links: http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sandy, You need to read what I have done with the correlation coefficient. I translated it into RCCs which are easier to use. Computing the cc's via the cc algorithm was found to be correct, and the simplification of the conversion into RCCs makes the analysis much easier than it would be if I had not done the conversion. No, I have not made any mistake. It all fits. I suggest you read my paper 1 again in the JoGG. Also you should review how the cc is computed. - Bye from Bill Howard On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Sandy Paterson wrote: > Hi Bill > > I don't think we're wasting anyone's time. I think we've both made the same > mistake. We both used the Excel function, yes, but with insufficient > thought. > > The correlation coefficient is designed to produce answers that lie between > -1 and +1. It requires the summing of the products of the differences > between attributes and the population mean for those attributes (not the > mean of the attributes for each individual). Comparing an individual marker > with the mean of the marker scores of that individual is meaningless. > > > Sandy > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bill Howard > Sent: 12 July 2011 12:43 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Tree > > Sandy, > One of us is confused and I don't think it is I! > The Excel function for correlation is the one I used. Since Excel does it > within its own 'black box', I have checked it out with statistical > algorithms and find it to be correct. > Enough of this! I think we are wasting the list readers' time. > - Bye from Bill Howard > > On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Sandy Paterson wrote: > >> Really? >> >> Actually, they are garbage. In correlation, the numerator is the sum of > the >> products of (person A value of attribute - mean attribute value of >> population) x (person B value of attribute - mean attribute value of >> population). >> >> In what I set up in the spreadsheet, this is not the case. So they are not >> correlation coefficients at all. They may have some meaning, I don't know, >> but they look like garbage to me. >> >> >> Sandy >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bill Howard >> Sent: 11 July 2011 14:46 >> To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [R-M222] M222 Tree >> >> To the list: >> >> Yes, Sandy has done the calculation right. >> >> R1b1c7 Research and Links: >> >> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message