Dear Professor Yaffee,
thanks a lot for Your Kindness and for Your Time.
Kind Regards,
Carlo
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] Per conto di Robert A Yaffee
Inviato: luned� 14 maggio 2007 16.05
A: [email protected]
Oggetto: Re: st: Comparing non-parametric bootstrap vs. Monte Carlo
Carlo,
Neil is correct. I should have mentioned the references.
So here are some of them: Leslie Kish, in Survey Sampling, covers the
finite population
correction on pp. 43ff. Sharon Lohr, in Sampling: Design and Analysis,
addresses
this matter on pp 33,45. She also refers to this matter in pp. 196-199. W.
E. Deming
in Some Theory on Sampling takes it up on pp. 103-104. Efron and
Tibshirani, 1986, sec 9
take up the number of iterations needed.
Regards,
Bob Yaffee
Robert A. Yaffee, Ph.D.
Research Professor
Shirley M. Ehrenkranz
School of Social Work
New York University
home address:
Apt 19-W
2100 Linwood Ave.
Fort Lee, NJ
07024-3171
Phone: 201-242-3824
Fax: 201-242-3825
[email protected]
----- Original Message -----
From: Neil Shephard <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:16 am
Subject: Re: st: Comparing non-parametric bootstrap vs. Monte Carlo
To: [email protected]
> On 5/14/07, Robert A Yaffee <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Carlo,
> > A reading of Kish, Lohr, Deming and others on sampling will show
> differences due to finite population
> > effect will diminish as the sample size increases. At the size you
> propose to investigate, there
> > should be little difference between the methods in which you are
> interested. You will find more
> > on this in Efron's works on the correct number of bootstrap trials
> to use.
>
> The above is no doubt useful to some, but would be useful to far more
> people (both now and in the future for those who may search/browse the
> archives) if the complete references were provided.
>
> As stated in the Statalist FAQ (under
> http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/statalist.html#advice)
>
> " Please do not assume that the literature familiar to you is familiar
> to all members of Statalist. Do not refer to publications with just
> minimal details (e.g., author and date). Questions of the form "Has
> anyone implemented the heteroscedasticity under a full moon test of
> Sue, Grabbit, and Runne (1989)?" admittedly divide the world. Anyone
> who has not heard of the said test would not be helped by the full
> reference to answer the question, but they might well appreciate the
> full reference."
>
> Neil
> --
> "Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute
> rejection of authority." - Thomas H. Huxley
>
> Email - [email protected] / [email protected]
> Website - http://slack.ser.man.ac.uk/
> Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/slackline/
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
