19-08-2020, 07:00 AM
I think we were meaning the same.....
If one uses -1 and +1, then the result +1 means fully correlated, ; -1 means fully ant-correlated, and 0 means uncorrelated. This is as we know correlation.
If one does the same calculation with 0 and 1, then fully correlated still comes out as 1, but fully anti-correlated comes out as 0. One would have to do the linear mapping.
In the (hypothetical) case that Darrin omitted that mapping, then the plots should come out looking the same, but the scales for the two axes would be different.
If one uses -1 and +1, then the result +1 means fully correlated, ; -1 means fully ant-correlated, and 0 means uncorrelated. This is as we know correlation.
If one does the same calculation with 0 and 1, then fully correlated still comes out as 1, but fully anti-correlated comes out as 0. One would have to do the linear mapping.
In the (hypothetical) case that Darrin omitted that mapping, then the plots should come out looking the same, but the scales for the two axes would be different.