Greg Hennessy wrote in message
...
In article ,
greywolf42 wrote:

Joseph, *why* do you keep repeating this silly statement? Many people
make such claims, but it is not valid science or statistics. You can
easily
show me wrong, by directing me to a statistics treatise on how to
perform measurements below the resolution of the instrument used.

I've told you that "resolution" is the incorrect word, and
sensitivity is the correct one,

And I see that you couldn't point me to any text that supports your case.

And Roberts and Joseph disagree with your word use. But the issue is not
what word to use. Call it 'sensitivity' if you like. I'm not discussing
sigma (the statistical error). I'm discussing the physical resolution of
the "instrument" -- not the claimed error bar in a given experiment.

and quoted you the paper that shows
that the resolution of the instrument in question is 7 degrees, not a
number of microK.

But Roberts and Joseph and Bjoern claim a few microK.

The units of the sensitivity of the instrument is
Kelvin,

I believe that you are mistaken. The device is simply a multiple channel
intensity recorder, with 100 channels. Each channel "sensitive" to 0.1%.

and the relationship between sensitivity and observing time is
called the "radiometer equation" and can easily be found in any
standard text, including web pages such as
http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~pvdwe.../awt2_13d.html
or
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...rEquation.html

And that does not match reality. Because the data is stored in binary form.
No matter how long you run the device, you can never exceed the capacity of
the storage medium.

Or is it simply data analysis 101 -- and valid?

An increase in sensitivity (meaning the error going down) as the
observing time increases is simple data analysis 101.

But we aren't discussing sigma -- even if you call it sensitivity, or call
it resolution. The physical resolution of the instrument is the same,
whether one makes one measurement or 1 million.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}