Article View: sci.math.stat
Article #557Re: Congressional Check Bouncing
From: Charles Packer
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:08
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:08
12 lines
1246 bytes
1246 bytes
In article <1992Nov9.225516.11794@Princeton.EDU>, sjackman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Simon D. Jackman) writes... >distribution is highly positively skewed. I think it maxed out around >960 checks, but a large number of people had zero or only a small number >of bounced checks. ..And positive skewness is what one would expect, since check-bouncing is a performance variable, in the same class as income attainment or publishing papers! Experts, is this a lognormal or hyperbolic distribution? Does one shade into the other? In either case, aren't multiplicative effects usually proposed to model this, as opposed to the additive effects that generate a Gaussian distribution?
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<10NOV199207082159@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!nsisrv!amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov!packerReferences:
<DAVIS.92Nov8151949@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu> <1992Nov9.225516.11794@Princeton.EDU>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.math.stat Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!nsisrv!amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov!packer From: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) Subject: Re: Congressional Check Bouncing Message-ID: <10NOV199207082159@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov> News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1 Sender: usenet@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Usenet) Nntp-Posting-Host: amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov Organization: Dept. of Independence References: <DAVIS.92Nov8151949@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu> <1992Nov9.225516.11794@Princeton.EDU> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:08:00 GMT Lines: 12