Dear ,
First, I think you do not understand very well what linear prediction is and what Kriging means. To my opinion, you tend to confuse the data and the probabilistic model. Do you want to prevent people from fitting linear models because the underlying process that generated the data may not be that linear ? Anyway, if people want to use Kriging, why do you want to prevent them ?
Why do you persist to use wikipedia to diffuse your own point of view, against the NPOV?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.66.97.37 (talk • contribs)
What I do understand is that assuming continued mineralization between boreholes does not make sense. You can do whatever you like but you ought to study Matheron's seminal work before you assume continuity between measured values in ordered sets, interpolate by kriging, select the least biased and most precise subset of some infinite set of kriged estimates, smooth its pseudo kriging variance to perfection and rig the rules of classical statistics in the process. Please do sign your message!!!--Merksmatrix 19:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, well, let's try to find a first agreement.
- First question: do you acknowledge that you are breaking the NPOV ?
To my opinion, you are breaking the NPOV, for the very reason that you are claiming that Kriging is not statistically well-founded (which, to my opinion, is not an interesting point of view).
Whether you do or do not acknowledge, I propose the article be reverted to a neutral form till a solution is settled. Any revert without justification may be consider as vandalism. If you want to modify the article, do not break the NPOV. In particular, stop using some serpentine ways, by for instance, cluttering the article with specialist-only understandable lingo.
- Second question: do you really think that Matheron's seminal work has importance to explain what Kriging is ?
I would like to point out that i have read some of his work. I personnally find a lot of his notes quite useless and besides, very difficult to read. What is important is to understand what Kriging is how it is used, and why.
- Third question : do you really consider yourself as a scientist ?
In science, if someone finds something not suited for his purpose, nobody will prevent this person from using something else. If you have better to propose, make a publication ! Be a scientist, not a religionist.
Antro5 18:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Answer to first question: I’m assisting the one and only person who is trying to find some sort of missing link between the theory of kriging and the practice of polynomial curve fitting by giving references to the literature.
Answer to second question: The objective of your exercise is to provide a historical perspective of polynomial curve fitting. In your opinion, the theory of kriging plays a role in the practice of polynomial curve fitting. Agterberg, Matheron, Koch, Link, and scores of other scholars do not agree with you. Surely, you would not want push your own view on those who want to know what kriging is all about, would you? Matheron dabbled in classical statistics before drifting into geostatistics. His work remains relevant because it shows the earliest contortions of the most seminal of geostatistically gifted minds.
Answer to third question: If you really want to know what the united geostatocracy and the krigeologists of the world think about my work, you should visit my website.--Merksmatrix 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
See talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antro5 (talk • contribs) [Link added Jmath666 18:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC))]