Grammar Check ... Neither - Nor, Prevail, Outweigh?

The two variables are "A" and "B," and "A2," "B1," "B2," and "B3" are values assigned to them?
I don't understand your conclusion, but I might word it thus: "as no single combination has significantly more or fewer occurrences than the others."

- A.

Hi Avangi,

Thanks for that

AvangiI don't understand your conclusion,

No wonder, as I have omitted why I have drawn that conclusion (in case you it is of any interested, it was based on this model ).

My example was only an oversimplification of the variables and their values.
By the way, your understanding (first sentence) is correct: A and B are two variables and A2 one of the values taken by A; B1, B2, B3 are three values taken by B ... I thought I said that in my first post

Your wording works, of course, but I do need to retain the word "correlation".
Any ideas?
Thank you ever so much!

TanitThe map also puts in evidence that there is no significant correlation between the two variables, as neither does any combination clearly prevail over/dominate the others, nor is any combination outweighed/dominated by the others.

Hi, Tanit.

I do need to retain the word "correlation".

My thought was to keep your original up to "variables," and then reword from there:

"as no single combination has significantly more or fewer occurrences than the others."

Best wishes, - A.

AvangiMy thought was to keep your original up to "variables," and then reword from there:

Gosh! I feel dumb!

Thanks, B.!

This is what I would write:

The table also shows that there is no significant correlation between the two variables, as no combination clearly prevails over the others.

I'd say that adding another clause that says the same thing again (or, to be exact, is deducible from the first clause) is unnecessary.

A little off-topic: Won't you need something more rigorous statistically than just eye-balling the data and saying that it looks to you like no combination prevails over the others?

CJ

CalifJimI'd say that adding another clause that says the same thing again (or, to be exact, is deducible from the first clause) is unnecessary.

Hi, Jim.
I'm not sure if you're sayiing that "no combination prevails" may be deduced from "there is no significant correlation"; or that "no combination has significantly fewer combinations than the others" may be deduced from "no combination prevails"?
Or do you feel that Tanit's request for that aspect of it is unjustified?

What I hadn't yet digested was exactly how the frequency of occurrence of the nine value pairs reflects the correlation of the two variables.

Thanks, - A.

TanitMy example was only an oversimplification of the variables and their values.

Thanks for the reference article. I studied it a bit, but it's not my cup of tea.
You say these are two variables among others, so I guess you're looking for correlations between variable pairs.
I had hoped to discover what constitutes an occurrence, but failed to do so. I had thought perhaps it meant an occurrence of the specific values coming out at the end of a calculation.

You seem to be saying that evidence of a significant correlation between a pair of variables is found when one pair of values sees a much higher or a much lower number of "occurrences" than any other pair of values for the same pair of variables.
I'll satisfy myself to leave it at that.
Cheers - B.

AvangiI'm not sure if you're sayiing that "no combination prevails" may be deduced from "there is no significant correlation"; or that "no combination has significantly fewer combinations than the others" may be deduced from "no combination prevails"?

The latter. Note how much shorter my version is, and you'll see which clause I omitted as (in my opinion) unnecessary.

Tanit's:
... as neither does any combination clearly prevail over/dominate the others, nor is any combination outweighed/dominated by the others.

Mine:
... as no combination clearly prevails over the others.

I believe that my version also implies the "nor" clause in Tanit's version -- though I recognize the possibility that some logician may be able to prove me wrong on that point!

To me, both the active version in the "neither" clause and the passive version in the "nor" clause amount to the same thing, namely, all combinations occur in about the same frequency.
________________

Note to Tanit: I've changed my opinion. I would use "predominates" instead of "prevails" in the version I showed you earlier. In fact, "predominates" implies "over others", so the whole clause can be written as:

... as no combination clearly predominates.

CJ