Thread: Complex correlations

Thanks Stephen- progress is wonderful thank you, I'm very impressed and certainly grateful of all your time.
This latest code actually seems to just rank means a-g from smallest to largest, it doesn't look like it's using LSD correctly and so it's struggling with all the past examples that had previously worked.

What I was trying to do in those few examples that weren't working was change cetain aspects and see where the macro stumbled; it looks like the macro is more accurate when there are fewer decimal places involved.
I did wonder if examples with small differences, differences that were only just inside LSD, were throwing it off but the very last example in book 2 worked fine so I don't think that's the case.

Please don't feel limited by these examples; they are just made up numbers to fit an expected group order which I then run to see if what I expected comes back, if it helps to make up your own figures to incorperate into the model please do.

This has become a long week ofor you sorry- I may need to send you a new wax figure to replace the worn out one! and no hurry don't panic!

regards,
Graham

Graham - oh dear, back to the drawing board. I thought it was producing the right results, but maybe was unclear. What would be helpful if you could make absolutely clear what the results should be for those examples and then I can be sure I am working to the right end.

I've tried not to confuse things with 'what the macro got/ what it should have got' and just included examples as they should turn out, hopefully this helps.
I think it's almost there as a set can work perfectly, then if I add more units after the decimal on either the means or the LSD confusion arises.
So far I get the best results with the second edit of code if that helps?

you'll be seeing little a's and b's in your sleep all weekend!

Quite likely. I get most of my best ideas at 4am.