Sentences with phrase «if logarithms»

The formulae in this article are exact if logarithmic units are used for relative changes, or equivalently if logarithms of indices are used in place of rates, and hold even for large relative changes.

Not exact matches

The idea is that if a plot of the logarithm of the market's value over time deviates upwards from a straight line, it's a clear warning...

We used the standard error of the logarithm of the relative risk, or the number of events if the standard error was unavailable, as weights in the regression; if both were unavailable, we did an unweighted log - linear regression for the study.

For consumption, we used the midpoint of the reported number of cigarettes per day — for example, three cigarettes per day if the category was one to five cigarettes per day — which we then adjusted for carboxyhaemoglobin and cotinine because this allows for lower inhalation with increasing cigarette consumption as previously established.14 For studies that reported relative risks adjusted for age (or for additional factors), the model contained the logarithm of the relative risk (dependent variable) and consumption (independent variable) using only the midpoint of the cigarettes per day categories.

Most elegantly, if the natural logarithm is used, yielding the neper as logarithmic units, scaling by 100 to obtain the centineper yields units that are infinitesimally equal to percentage change (hence approximately equal for small values), and for which the linear equations hold for all values.

If you said 4, you are correct, as that is the 11th digit in the base of Napierian logarithms, e.

(The value of R2 for LOGpop does not change in the slightest when taking log (USpop) at different bases of the logarithm, nor if you divide the US population by a thousand or a million.

Once you accept the CAGW dogma that temperature change can be predicted by the change in a single predominant factor CO2 (actually the difference in the logarithms of CO2) then whether you use Hanson's model of Monckton's model, if you assume that CO2 is well - mixed (which we now know it isn't) then the change in temperature does not depend on where you measure it.

If the UHI only grows as the logarithm of the population, that could go a long way to explaining why Parker doesn't see any UHI trend.

Besides, I know what a logarithm is, and if going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm of CO2 is a «doubling», so is going from 1 ppm to 2 ppm, or one molecule of CO2 in the whole atmosphere to two molecules of CO2 in the whole atmosphere.

For instance, if we regress global temperature as a function of time, and of the logarithm of population, then we find that those two predictors are strongly correlated.

Jim, if you want to compare with CO2, use a logarithm.

In the data above, the R ^ 2 (a measure of correlation) between the temperature and the CO2 is 0.68... but the R ^ 2 between the temperature and the logarithm of CO2, rather than being better as we'd expect if CO2 were actually driving temperature, is marginally worse for the logarithmic relationship (0.67) than the linear.

numerobis: The logarithm of an exponential function is linear only if the base of the logarithm is the same as the exponent.