You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

RichardKennaway comments on Should correlation coefficients be expressed as angles? - Less Wrong Discussion

43 Post author: Sniffnoy 28 November 2012 12:05AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (24)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 28 November 2012 10:18:00AM *  14 points [-]

It's interesting to compare these angles with those that come up in engineering.

  • One second of arc (the Ramsden theodolite): r = 0.99999999925

  • 1/5000 to 1/1000 inch per inch (accuracy of a try-square): r = 0.99999950 to 0.999999980

  • 1 minute of angle (the accuracy that a rifle should hold to) = 1 inch at 100 yards: r = 0.999999970

  • 1 degree: r = 0.99985

  • 1 compass point (1/32 of a revolution, limit of navigational accuracy in the days of sail): r = 0.981

And in contrast:

  • Correlation that implies 1 bit of mutual information (for a bivariate Gaussian): r = 0.866, angle = 30 degrees (exactly).

  • Correlation considered high in the softer disciplines: r = 0.8, angle = 36.9 degrees.

  • Correlation considered publishable: r = 0.2, angle = 78.5 degrees. This means that if the truth is due North, you're proceeding East by North (one compass point away from East).