Re: interpretation of fit errors

[Bastian M. <bma...@we...>]

Am 05.05.2011 19:58, schrieb Ethan A Merritt:
> On Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:01:53 am Bastian Märkisch wrote:
>> Does somebody have a better name for the proposed setting on how to
>> interpret data errors? The currently proposed
>>
>>    set fit relativeerrors|absoluteerrors
>>
>> sounds a bit odd to me. See bug #2956524
>
> I may be missing something, but why not just report both
> absolute and relative errors?   The user is free to pick whichever
> is relevant to the particular case at hand.   No extra options needed.
>
> 	Ethan

I think you just proved that the name may be misleading ;). This is 
about the interpretation of data errors (input), and the resulting 
scaling with FIT_STDFIT of reported variable errors (output). This is 
not about reporting relative errors as in a_err/a.

Not only is scaling the errors wrong in certain cases, but these error 
values are also saved to variables for further processing, e.g. in 
labels. Since, the user should be able to select. With `set fit abs` 
gnuplot reports the same errors as e.g. CERN Minuit.

Any other ideas about the names? weights|errors? scaling|noscaling? 
weights|real?

   Bastian