Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] average linkage cluster analysis

Expand Messages
  • dgentil@sears.com
    Hello Brian, Why is 102 in the same finger as 200 and 201? Dave Gentile Riverside, Illinois M.S. Physics Ph.D. Management Science candidate David Gentile
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Brian,

      Why is 102 in the same "finger" as 200 and 201?

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, Illinois
      M.S. Physics
      Ph.D. Management Science candidate





      David Gentile (some time ago) posted the graph of the result of applying
      the TREE Procedure. It shows six fingers representing six clusters of
      correlations. The categories (types) associated with each finger are --

      (1) 222 (also X22, 22X)
      (2) 220, 221 (also X20, 2X0)
      (3) 121, 120, 020 (also X21, 12X)
      (4) 202, 201, 200 (also X02, 20X)
      (5) 122, 121, 112, 002 (also X12)
      (6) 211, 210 (also 21X)




      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Brian Wilson wrote -- ... David Gentile replied -- ... Dave, Above, I have wrongly shown the category 121 twice, and omitted 102. The second 121 (in finger 5)
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Brian Wilson wrote --
        >
        >David Gentile (some time ago) posted the graph of the result of applying
        >the TREE Procedure. It shows six fingers representing six clusters of
        >correlations. The categories (types) associated with each finger are --
        >
        >(1) 222 (also X22, 22X)
        >(2) 220, 221 (also X20, 2X0)
        >(3) 121, 120, 020 (also X21, 12X)
        >(4) 202, 201, 200 (also X02, 20X)
        >(5) 122, 121, 112, 002 (also X12)
        >(6) 211, 210 (also 21X)
        >
        David Gentile replied --
        >
        >Why is 102 in the same "finger" as 200 and 201?
        >
        Dave,
        Above, I have wrongly shown the category 121 twice, and omitted
        102. The second 121 (in finger 5) should have read "102". Sorry about
        that. I have looked carefully at the graph, and in fact 102 is in finger
        5 because it is in line with the column of dots which is closest to
        finger 5 and furthest from finger 4. It is therefore not in the same
        finger as 200 and 201. The corrected version of the above is--
        >
        >(1) 222 (also X22, 22X)
        >(2) 220, 221 (also X20, 2X0)
        >(3) 020, 120, 121 (also X21, 12X)
        >(4) 200, 201, 202 (also X02, 20X)
        >(5) 002, 102, 112, 122 (also X12)
        >(6) 210, 211 (also 21X)
        >
        These can be easily explained on the basis of the new approach, that is
        by assuming that the "same words" indicate that one synoptist has
        redacted the source material, and that "different words" indicate that
        different synoptists have redacted --
        >
        >(1) represents the wording that remains after Mk, Mt and Lk have all
        >redacted the same source material.
        >(2) represents what remains after Mk and Mt, but not Lk, have redacted
        >source material.
        >(3) represents the wording left after Mk, but neither Mt nor Lk, have
        >redacted.
        >(4) represents the remaining wording after Mt and Lk, but not Mk, have
        >both redacted.
        >(5) represents the remaining wording after Lk and Mk, but not Mt, have
        >redacted the wording.
        >(6) represents the wording left after Mt, but neither Mk nor Lk, have
        >redacted.
        >
        Summarizing --
        (1) Mk + Mt + Lk
        (2) Mk + Mt - Lk
        (3) Mk - Mt - Lk
        (4) Mt + Lk - Mk
        (5) Mk + Lk - Mt
        (6) Mt - Mk - Lk

        I would suggest that the TREE Procedure therefore produces results that
        make very good sense on the hypothesis that if different types of
        material show a significant positive correlation, this is consistent
        with the same synoptist having been the redactor, whereas if two
        different types show a significant negative correlation, this is
        consistent with different synoptists having been the redactors.

        Comments would be welcome.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        >HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

        Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
        > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
        > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
        _


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • dgentil@sears.com
        Hello Brian, Assuming you are looking at this graph linked below, then you re not reading it correctly. The height of the column between the categories
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Brian,

          Assuming you are looking at this graph linked below, then you're not
          reading it correctly.
          The height of the column between the categories indicates the "strength" of
          their linkage.

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/message/7127

          102 is linked more with the 201 group than the "Luke" group.

          The cluster history above the graph gives the order it connects the groups.

          Dave Gentile
          Riverside, Illinois
          M.S. Physics
          Ph.D. management Science candidate








          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Brian E. Wilson
          Dave Gentile wrote -- ... Dave, Thanks for this. I was reading the graph in Escher reverse . I was seeing it as a black hand with fingers pointing downwards
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 4, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Dave Gentile wrote --
            >
            >Assuming you are looking at this graph linked below, then you're not
            >reading it correctly. 102 is linked more with the 201 group than the
            >"Luke" group.
            >
            Dave,
            Thanks for this. I was reading the graph in "Escher reverse". I was
            seeing it as a black hand with fingers pointing downwards from the axis
            at the top. It has now "flipped" Escher-style, so that I see instead a
            neat histogram with white bars pointing upwards towards the axis.

            Yes. I now agree. I see that 102 belongs to what I call cluster 4.
            However, I would suggest the cluster is not Lukan since it contains two
            non-Lukan Matthean but only one non-Matthean Lukan non-macro categories.
            My re-revised interpretation of this fascinating graph is --

            >
            >(1) 222 (also X22, 22X)
            >(2) 221, 220 (also X20, 2X0)
            >(3) 121. 120, 020 (also X21, 12X)
            >(4) 202, 201, 200, 102 (also X02, 20X)
            >(5) 122, 112, 002 (also X12)
            >(6) 211, 210 (also 21X)
            >
            These can be easily explained on the basis of the new approach, that is
            by assuming that the "same words" indicate that one synoptist has
            redacted the source material, and that "different words" indicate that
            different synoptists have redacted --

            (1) represents the wording that all three synoptists, Mk, Mt and Lk,
            retain after redacting the same source material.
            (2) represents what Mk and Mt retain but Luke does not retain, after
            redacting their common source material.
            (3) represents the wording Mk retains but Mt and Lk do not retain, after
            redacting their common source material.
            (4) represents the wording that either Mt or Lk (or both) retain, but Mk
            does not retain, after redacting their common source material.
            (5) represents the wording Lk retains, but Mt does not, after redacting
            their common source material.
            (6) represents the wording Mt retains, but neither Mk nor Lk retain,
            after they have redacted their common source material.

            Note that the remaining categories are 021, 022, 212, 012.

            Could (6) have also contained 212, so becoming 212, 211, 210 (it is
            designated as with 21X)? And could there have been a (7) consisting of
            022, 021, 012?

            Summarizing (where "W"" means "without 2") --
            (1) 222
            (2) 22W
            (3) W2W
            (4) 2WW + WW2
            (5) WW2
            (6) 2WW
            (7) (2W2 + WW2)??

            I would suggest that the TREE Procedure therefore produces results that
            make very good sense on the hypothesis that if different types of
            material show a significant positive correlation, this is consistent
            with the same synoptist having been the redactor, whereas if two
            different types show a significant negative correlation, this is
            consistent with different synoptists having been the redactors.

            Comments would be welcome.

            Best wishes,
            BRIAN WILSON

            >HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

            Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
            > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
            > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
            _

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • David Inglis
            Brian Wilson wrote: [snip] ... [snip] ... Brian, I completely fail to follow your logic. Cluster (4) includes 202, which can only have been created in one of
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 6, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Brian Wilson wrote:

              [snip]
              > Yes. I now agree. I see that 102 belongs to what I call cluster 4.
              > However, I would suggest the cluster is not Lukan since it contains two
              > non-Lukan Matthean but only one non-Matthean Lukan non-macro categories.
              > My re-revised interpretation of this fascinating graph is --
              >
              > >
              > >(1) 222 (also X22, 22X)
              > >(2) 221, 220 (also X20, 2X0)
              > >(3) 121. 120, 020 (also X21, 12X)
              > >(4) 202, 201, 200, 102 (also X02, 20X)
              > >(5) 122, 112, 002 (also X12)
              > >(6) 211, 210 (also 21X)
              > >
              > These can be easily explained on the basis of the new approach, that is
              > by assuming that the "same words" indicate that one synoptist has
              > redacted the source material, and that "different words" indicate that
              > different synoptists have redacted --
              [snip]
              > (4) represents the wording that either Mt or Lk (or both) retain, but Mk
              > does not retain, after redacting their common source material.

              Brian,

              I completely fail to follow your logic. Cluster (4) includes 202, which can
              only have been created in one of the following ways:

              1 Matthew and Luke copied these identical portions of text from a common
              source (e.g. the LT)
              2 Matthew created the text, which Luke then copied from Matthew
              3 Luke created the text, which Matthew then copied from Luke

              Note that in my case (1) it is IMPOSSIBLE by definition for either Matthew
              or Luke to have 'redacted' this source, since if they did then the text
              would no longer be the same as the other copy, and hence it couldn't be in
              202. In other words, the bits that Matthew redacts become 201, and the bits
              Luke redacts become 102. Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for 202 to contain text
              redacted by both Matthew and Luke.

              So, if the 201-202 positive is explained by Matthew redacting 202, then your
              explanation of the 202-102 positive is false because Luke didn't redact 202.
              Conversely, if Luke redacted 202 then your explanation of the 202-201
              positive is false. In other words, your hypothesis cannot explain both the
              202-102 and 202-201 positives at the same time, and is therefore falsified
              as it stands.

              Dave Inglis
              david@...
              3538 O'Connor Drive
              Lafayette, CA, USA




              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Brian E. Wilson
              Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Dave Inglis replied -- ... Dave, Your argument cannot be valid, since the following shows that what you say is impossible could have
              Message 6 of 9 , Jan 6, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Brian Wilson wrote --
                >
                >[snip]
                >Yes. I now agree. I see that 102 belongs to what I call cluster 4.
                >However, I would suggest the cluster is not Lukan since it contains two
                >non-Lukan Matthean but only one non-Matthean Lukan non-macro
                >categories.
                >My re-revised interpretation of this fascinating graph is --
                >
                >(1) 222 (also X22, 22X)
                >(2) 221, 220 (also X20, 2X0)
                >(3) 121. 120, 020 (also X21, 12X)
                >(4) 202, 201, 200, 102 (also X02, 20X)
                >(5) 122, 112, 002 (also X12)
                >(6) 211, 210 (also 21X)
                >
                >These can be easily explained on the basis of the new approach, that is
                >by assuming that the "same words" indicate that one synoptist has
                >redacted the source material, and that "different words" indicate that
                >different synoptists have redacted --
                >[snip]
                >(4) represents the wording that either Mt or Lk (or both) retain, but
                >>Mk does not retain, after redacting their common source material.
                >
                Dave Inglis replied --
                >
                >I completely fail to follow your logic. Cluster (4) includes 202,
                >which can only have been created in one of the following ways:
                >
                >1 Matthew and Luke copied these identical portions of text from a
                >common source (e.g. the LT)
                >2 Matthew created the text, which Luke then copied from Matthew
                >3 Luke created the text, which Matthew then copied from Luke
                >
                >Note that in my case (1) it is IMPOSSIBLE by definition for either
                >Matthew or Luke to have 'redacted' this source, since if they did then
                >the text would no longer be the same as the other copy, and hence it
                >couldn't be in 202. In other words, the bits that Matthew redacts
                >become 201, and the bits Luke redacts become 102. Therefore it is
                >IMPOSSIBLE for 202 to contain text redacted by both Matthew and Luke.
                >
                Dave,
                Your argument cannot be valid, since the following shows that what
                you say is impossible could have happened --

                Matthew LT Luke


                HEY DIDDLE DIDDLE, HEY DIDDLE DIDDLE, HEY DIDDLE DIDDLE,
                THE CAT AND THE THE CAT AND THE THE CAT AND THE
                FIDDLE. AND THE FIDDLE. AND THE FIDDLE.
                THE COW JUMPED THE COW JUMPED THE COW JUMPED
                OVER THE MOON. OVER THE MOON. OVER THE MOON.
                And the little dog And the little dog And the dish ran
                laughed to see such laughed to see such away with the spoon.
                fun. fun,
                And the dish ran
                away with the spoon.


                Matthew has redacted LT, retaining some, but omitting other LT words.
                Luke has also redacted LT, also retaining some, but omitting other LT
                words. We see that 202 material (shown in upper case letters) is formed
                as a result of Mt and Lk having independently redacted LT. This shows
                that it is perfectly possible for LT wording to have been redacted
                independently by both Nt and Lk to produce 202 words that are the same
                in both Mt and Lk. I think the mistake in your argument is in the
                statement --
                >
                >1 Matthew and Luke copied these identical portions of text from a
                >common source (e.g. the LT)
                >
                What you should have written was that Matthew and Luke used the same
                piece of material from the common source (e.g. the LT) with the result
                that *some* of the words they each copied were the same so producing 202
                words in their gospels. On the LTH, each synoptist **edited** the
                wording of the material he selected from the LT. The agreements in
                wording between synoptists are where independently they retained the
                same words of the LT material they selected and edited.
                >
                >So, if the 201-202 positive is explained by Matthew redacting 202,
                >then your explanation of the 202-102 positive is false because Luke
                >didn't redact 202.
                >
                I have just shown that it is perfectly possible that Matthew and Luke
                did redact the same LT material to produce 202 passages so that this,
                and the rest of your argument, collapses.

                By the way, if your argument had been valid, then the Two Document
                Hypothesis would have been sunk without trace, since in your case 1, the
                common source could have been Q as posited by the 2DH!

                Best wishes,
                BRIAN WILSON

                >HOMEPAGE http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/

                Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                _

                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • dgentil@sears.com
                Brian Wilson asked: ======== Could (6) have also contained 212, so becoming 212, 211, 210 (it is designated as with 21X)? And could there have been a (7)
                Message 7 of 9 , Jan 8, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Brian Wilson asked:
                  ========
                  Could (6) have also contained 212, so becoming 212, 211, 210 (it is
                  designated as with 21X)? And could there have been a (7) consisting of
                  022, 021, 012?
                  =======

                  Because of he low amount of data in these categories, they all form thier
                  own cluster if they are included.
                  These are called "outliers" in cluster analysis.

                  Dave




                  Sent by: owner-synoptic-l@...


                  To: Synoptic-L@...
                  cc:

                  Subject: [Synoptic-L] average linkage cluster analysis


                  Dave Gentile wrote --
                  >
                  >Assuming you are looking at this graph linked below, then you're not
                  >reading it correctly. 102 is linked more with the 201 group than the
                  >"Luke" group.
                  >
                  Dave,
                  Thanks for this. I was reading the graph in "Escher reverse". I was
                  seeing it as a black hand with fingers




                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • David Inglis
                  ... In the full results 212 does now show some signs of clustering with 211 and 210, but only with low confidence. 022, 021, and 012 are all very clearly in
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jan 9, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Brian Wilson asked:
                    > ========
                    > Could (6) have also contained 212, so becoming 212, 211, 210 (it is
                    > designated as with 21X)? And could there have been a (7) consisting of
                    > 022, 021, 012?
                    > =======
                    >
                    In the full results 212 does now show some signs of clustering with 211 and
                    210, but only with low confidence.
                    022, 021, and 012 are all very clearly in seperate groupings (022-220-222,
                    021-120-121-221, and 012-002-112)

                    Dave Inglis
                    david@...
                    3538 O'Connor Drive
                    Lafayette, CA, USA




                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.