OK, ok..I wasn't going to expend bandwidth getting into this one..but I
think Nigel's wrong when it comes to 'convincing peers'. It's a simple
mathematical proof that the line between two points is straight (assuming
Euclidean geometric system)... in fact, the addition of any more points
just allows would-be quibblers ammunition with which to dispute your
choice of line. Now, if only I can convince my committee members of the
validity of that argument ;-)
On 30 Mar 1996, Nigel Smith wrote:
> In article <9603291834.AA29206 at mercury.med.pitt.edu>, bap at MED.PITT.EDU> (Bruce Phillips) wrote:
>> > Recently, Dwight Lynn had the audacity to communicate:
> >
> >> I'm sorry to inform you that you cannot determine a linear relationship
> >> with just two points. You'll need to set up another centrifuge at 3X for 8
> >> years and 8 months.
> >
> > Dwight Lynn
> >
> > Au contraire, two points are the surest way to establish a straight
> > line. In the realm of good science, I am willing to get the points BEFORE
> > drawing the line.
>> Two points certainly define a line, and if want a straight line then two
> points is all you should take.
>> However, if you want to prove to your peers that the line *is* straight, I
> would suggest you plot a few more...
>> Nigel
>>
