Samuel S Wilks in 1954 praised statistical thinking in the USA. Meanwhile in Algeria Georges Matheron thought he was working with applied statistics. He called his first paper Formule de Minerais Connexes and marked it Note Statistique No1. CdG’s webmaster has posted it as Note géostatistique No 1. Matheron tested for associative dependence between lead and silver grades determined in drill core samples of variable length. He didn’t show his set of primary data nor did he give references. He deemed himself without peers. And that’s just as well. Matheron in a Rectificatif to his paper derived length-weighted average lead and silver grades for core samples of variable length. Here’s where he failed. His degree of associative dependence between lead and silver didn’t take into account the variable length of core samples. He didn’t derive the variances of lead and silver grades. Neither did he derive the variances of length-weighted average lead and silver grades. Matheron, too, lost David's "famous Central Limit Theorem".
He didn’t even try to test for spatial dependence between ordered sets of metal grades. Young Matheron had a long way to go. Yet, he kept marching in place to the din of kriging drums.
So it was that he never did what he had failed to do in 1954. It was Dr Frederik P Agterberg in his eulogy who called Professor Dr Georges Matheron (1930-2000) the founder of Spatial Statistics. Here’s what may baffle many a mind! Matheron and his minions would rather assume spatial dependence between measured values than apply Fisher’s F-test to the variance of the set and the first variance term of the ordered set. To assume spatial dependence where it doesn’t exist is the very reason why the study of climate dynamics is such a mess.
CIM Bulletin has been my core source of fickle stats since the 1990s. A few of my papers were published in CIM Bulletin and may be downloaded from CIM’s website. Life Members, too, do pay for downloads. In contrast, Matheron’s work may be downloaded from CdG’s website free of charge. A paper for which no download fee ought to be charged is Armstrong and Champigny’s A Study on Kriging Small Blocks. David must have been pleased that mine planners were to blame for over-smoothed estimates. But he was not at all pleased that Precision Estimates for Ore Reserves was short of references to geostatistics. So, I submitted the same paper on November 14, 1990 to the Journal for Mathematical Geology. JMG’s reviews turned out to be a toss-up. That’s why JMG’s Editor had asked his Associate Editor to review our paper. JMG’s Associate Editor was the same Margaret Armstrong who studied kriging of small blocks. Of course, she saw fit to reject a paper that was praised by and published in Erzmetall.
Armstrong’s up-to-date list of publications does not refer to the study on over-smoothed small blocks. She doesn’t even mention her stirring Freedom of Speech? She wrote it as Editor of De Geostatisticis. It was a little leaflet with a few pages of text about the blessings of geostatistics. From time to time one more leaflet would be published to praise Matheron’s gift to the mining industry.