Re: not quite
Posted by Roger Hunter on August 22, 2007 at 12:37:21:

John;

Of course not, but that's not what I said. If quakes are normally distributed with time you should see fewer on either side of the peak but instead the peak is at zero days and we see a steady decrease.

Why is the peak zero rather than 4?

Roger


Follow Ups:
     ● peak should always be at zero - John Vidale  14:31:06 - 8/22/2007  (72504)  (0)
     ● peak should always be at zero - John Vidale  14:31:02 - 8/22/2007  (72503)  (1)
        ● Re: peak should always be at zero - Roger Hunter  16:32:41 - 8/22/2007  (72507)  (0)
     ● Re: not quite; also - Roger Hunter  13:37:53 - 8/22/2007  (72502)  (1)
        ● Re: not quite; also - heartland chris  15:26:21 - 8/22/2007  (72506)  (0)