From: Hans-Bernhard B. <HBB...@t-...> - 2011-05-06 19:45:18
|
On 06.05.2011 05:08, Daniel J Sebald wrote: > On 05/05/2011 04:10 PM, Bastian Märkisch wrote: > One thing I notice is that Hans-Bernhard uses the term "residuals". Yes, but only for what's always called that: the difference between fitted model and data. > Now, "residuals" is a fairly common definition in fitting. Maybe it > would have been better in the first place to use "_res" extensions to > variable names for the unscaled errors and "_err" for the scaled errors I rather much doubt that. The term residual is not applicable to parameter errors in any meaningful way. > The argument is made in the post that one is derived from the other with > a simple scaling; That argument would be wrong. Parameter errors scale in parallel with the data errors (or weights, if you prefer), not with the residiuals. > avoid ambiguity. If "error" has some ambiguity in the field, whereas > "residual" is much less ambiguous, then go with the latter. "Residual" is unambiguous primarily because it is use for exactly one purpose. Calling something else by the same name would only break that unambiguity. That wouldn't be particularly helpful. |