High School Viability of log-log transformation for some data

Click For Summary
Log-log transformations can help linearize data with power relationships, even if not centered at the origin. For the proposed scatter plot of domino distance and speed, applying a logarithmic transformation may yield a more linear appearance. However, log-log transformations are not effective for parabolas with vertices not at (0,0) unless the offset is adjusted accordingly. Specifically, adjustments like plotting log(x-1) instead of log(x) can address this issue. Overall, careful consideration of data characteristics is essential for effective transformation.
RubinLicht
Messages
131
Reaction score
8
I have taken AP Statistics, and this is for the final project. What we have learned consists of some simple significant tests (t test, z test for proportions, two sample tests, chi squared, and logarithmic transforms).

My partner and I are considering creating a scatter plot of distance between dominoes and the speed of the dominoes. If we applied a logarithmic transformation to the data (assuming there is some power relationship, which is most definitely not centered at the origin), would the data appear somewhat linear?

I would also like a clarification, do log log transformations work on, say, parabolas with vertexes not centered at (0,0)? (I just plotted a parabola with its vertex at 2,4 in mathematica, and the graph turned out strange for values to the left of the vertex, is there any way to amend for this?)Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
RubinLicht said:
If we applied a logarithmic transformation to the data (assuming there is some power relationship, which is most definitely not centered at the origin), would the data appear somewhat linear?
Test it? For some relations it can become linear.

RubinLicht said:
I would also like a clarification, do log log transformations work on, say, parabolas with vertexes not centered at (0,0)?
No, unless you take that offset into account separately (e. g. plot log(x-1) instead of log(x)).
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
33K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
15
Views
41K