Hey 'dinosaur' - Pay Attention

ken kpaulc at [remove]earthlink.net
Sun Mar 21 02:25:10 EST 2004


"ken" <kpaulc@[remove]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:JIb6c.27138$%06.24963 at newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> [...]
> "Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
> news:is0l30182sgrpuruft07ijlrdnej40u9v8 at 4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:26:01 GMT, "k p  Collins"
> > <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > } I stand on what =I've= posted.
> >
> > All of it?
> >
> > "You're missing some crucial data that cross-correlates
> > your 'time' series to the cerebellar topology.
> >
> > The cerebellum is a topographically-mapped subsystem.
> >
> > Any analysis must preserve, and incorporate, that mapping
> > if the correlations are to be meaningful."
> >
> >
> >
> > From: "k p  Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net>
> > Newsgroups:
> >
sci.nonlinear,sci.bio.technology,sci.math,bionet.neuroscience,sci.fractals
> > References: <235b9607.0401210500.3ebedda5 at posting.google.com>
> > Subject: Re: Practical problems with correlation dimension
> > Lines: 68
> > Organization: sufficient
> > X-Priority: 3
> > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
> > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
> > Message-ID: <AhvPb.17594$q4.2672 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
> > Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:38:40 GMT
> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.91.161.11
> > X-Complaints-To: abuse at earthlink.net
> > X-Trace: newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net 1074692320 64.91.161.11
> > (Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:38:40 PST)
> > NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:38:40 PST
> >
> >
> > "Karl" <karlknoblich at yahoo.de> wrote in message
> > news:235b9607.0401210500.3ebedda5 at posting.google.com...
> > > Hallo!
> > >
> > > I want to calculate the correlation dimension of a time serie.
> > >
> > > What I have done
> > > I calculated the correlation integral C(r) (number of point having a
> > > distance smaller than r) for different embedding dimensions. Taking
> > > the slopes of the curve of log C(r) against log r for the different
> > > embedding dimensions and plotting them against the embedding dimension
> > > should result in a limes of the slopes: the correlation dimension.
> > >
> > > My problem
> > > Which slope shall I take?
> > >
> > > In examples I saw in text books there is a nice limit of the slopes
> > > with higher embedding dimensions. In my data I do not know which slope
> > > I should take because the slope of the curve varies. If I take the
> > > slope at a certain value of log r I can not get a limes.
> > >
> > > My curves (log C(r) against log r) can be seen in
> > > http://karlknoblich.4t.com/korrdim.jpg
> > >
> > >
> > > What to do? Does anybody knows such data and how to handle it?
> > >
> > > Hope somebody can help!
> > >
> > > Karl

Note how, in my reply to the OP, I explained what I was
doing, made Certain that the OP understood that I was
responding with stuff that had not yet been accepted by
others.

But, 'dinosaur', you've been going on about how I was
doing 'offensive' stuff that could 'mislead' Students ask-
ing questions. But, you see? Way back when I replied to
the OP, I did so Responsibly, and, then, I went on to
=begin= sharing stuff with the OP. And, then, you 'jumped'
me, and I never was able to continue my discussion of the
stuff I wanted to shre with the OP.

======================================
> > What I will say has not yet been accepted by others,
> > so keep that in mind as you consider it.
======================================

kpc

> > You're missing some crucial data that cross-correlates
> > your 'time' series to the cerebellar topology.
> >
> > The cerebellum is a topographically-mapped subsystem.
> >
> > Any analysis must preserve, and incorporate, that mapping
> > if the correlations are to be meaningful.
> >
> > And, then, to continue, one has to follow this mapping into
> > the rest of the brain.
> >
> > It's a =big= problem, but the mapping is mapped :-] through
> > the efforts of Neuroscientists, and all one has to do is 'grind'
> > through it.
> >
> > There a couple of other things that make your analysis Difficult.
> >
> > One is that the data is virtually always, itself, a transformation.
> >
> > The other is that the activation that occurs within the cerebellum
> > is extremely-dynamic, with a =lot= of different inputs converging
> > and 'sliding' with respect to each other. There is such 'sliding'
> > stuff with respect to every joint in the skelleton. [These enter
> > into the way that the nervous system maintains it's 'awareness'
> > of the body's orientation in 3-D space [climbing fibers from
> > the inferior olive].] And this is only one set of such 'sliding-field'
> > stuff that occurs within the cerebellum. There are hundreds
> > [perhaps thousands] more.
> >
> > So your analysis is Hard.
> >
> >
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list