Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> "Perplexed in Peoria"  wrote
in message news:cpde12$24kf$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> 

>>NOTES:
>>
>>0. This rule is my own invention.  It seems roughly correct to me, but
>>I may be completely off base.
>>[snip]
> 
> 
> After further thought, I think I was slightly off base.  Here is my revised
> rule:
> 
> (r_IBD - r_IBD_hat) * b > (1 - r_IBD_hat) * c
> 
Or Fb > c, where F = (r_IBD - r_IBD_hat)/(1 - r_IBD_hat).  The point is 
that F now looks like one of Wright's F statistics.  I'd have to check 
the literature to see if it actually is one (and it's the weekend now. 
I wonder if I'll have remembered on Monday).

It would help if you could give a mathematical proof, obviously.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2b)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland

Telephone: +358-9-191 51479
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 51400
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: www.jnr-eeb.org
---
ž RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2į’* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/12/04 6:22:57 AM