Talk:Normal distribution: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Aleksander Stos m (formating) |
John Leach (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "CZ:Article Mechanics" to "CZ:Article mechanics") |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
There are a couple of maths formulae which are not parsing correctly and thus need correcting. --[[User:Charles Blackham|Charles Blackham]] 14:58, 21 April 2007 (CDT) | There are a couple of maths formulae which are not parsing correctly and thus need correcting. --[[User:Charles Blackham|Charles Blackham]] 14:58, 21 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
| Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
For completeness a small section could be added where physicists and chemists use the normal distribution in interpreting their experimental data as well as the error distribution in the observed quantities. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:black"> <font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> 22:04, 21 April 2007 (CDT) | For completeness a small section could be added where physicists and chemists use the normal distribution in interpreting their experimental data as well as the error distribution in the observed quantities. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:black"> <font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> 22:04, 21 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
Before approving, consider that this is a 'pure' Wikipedia article at present. IMHO, it would get speedy delete if it was here during BigSpeedyDelete operation. In fact, the article is not that bad, but it still contains some gaps. Measure error distribution (mentioned above) is one of them; from probabilistic point of view, infinite divisibility and stability sections while needed, are, ekhem, underdeveloped to put it mildly. I guess I could find some more examples of this kind at request -- but this is not my aim to criticize without working on it. Further, in part the text is written in form of a 'reference manual', just bare facts with no meaning/explanation. As it stands, it could be very useful for professionals who already know the subject -- but is this consistent with what we want to develop as CZ style of general purpose encyclopedia? See [[CZ:Article | Before approving, consider that this is a 'pure' Wikipedia article at present. IMHO, it would get speedy delete if it was here during BigSpeedyDelete operation. In fact, the article is not that bad, but it still contains some gaps. Measure error distribution (mentioned above) is one of them; from probabilistic point of view, infinite divisibility and stability sections while needed, are, ekhem, underdeveloped to put it mildly. I guess I could find some more examples of this kind at request -- but this is not my aim to criticize without working on it. Further, in part the text is written in form of a 'reference manual', just bare facts with no meaning/explanation. As it stands, it could be very useful for professionals who already know the subject -- but is this consistent with what we want to develop as CZ style of general purpose encyclopedia? See [[CZ:Article mechanics]]. I'd rather suggest that if no further development occurs, the article is to be... deleted. --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 07:38, 22 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
PS. I believe that our first approved article in Math should be [[gamma function]]. | PS. I believe that our first approved article in Math should be [[gamma function]]. | ||
:Aleks, again one which bases deeply in chemistry and physics, I will add the appropriate workgroups. As far as for instance data analysis and error correction or reduction is concerned I am planning an article on that topic. For that reason the basic description of the distributions that are known in statistics is enough to serve their purpose. The interpretation of the dull and boring facts can be described when they reflect the application of these distributions. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:black"> <font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> 16:29, 22 April 2007 (CDT) | :Aleks, again one which bases deeply in chemistry and physics, I will add the appropriate workgroups. As far as for instance data analysis and error correction or reduction is concerned I am planning an article on that topic. For that reason the basic description of the distributions that are known in statistics is enough to serve their purpose. The interpretation of the dull and boring facts can be described when they reflect the application of these distributions. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:black"> <font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> 16:29, 22 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
:Contrary to the gamma function the distributions do need being explained by their application in real life problems and experimental data. I do agree with you however the gamma function is in a further stage of development than gauss. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:black"> <font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> 16:36, 22 April 2007 (CDT) | :Contrary to the gamma function the distributions do need being explained by their application in real life problems and experimental data. I do agree with you however the gamma function is in a further stage of development than gauss. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:black"> <font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> 16:36, 22 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 16:02, 5 March 2024
There are a couple of maths formulae which are not parsing correctly and thus need correcting. --Charles Blackham 14:58, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
- I think I've fixed that now. It appears that Citizendium's version of TeX is not yet as versatile as Wikipedia's. Michael Hardy 21:12, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
approval
it seems this article is approaching approval status, it needs some tweaking but so far it seems ok to me. Robert Tito | Talk 22:01, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
For completeness a small section could be added where physicists and chemists use the normal distribution in interpreting their experimental data as well as the error distribution in the observed quantities. Robert Tito | Talk 22:04, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
Before approving, consider that this is a 'pure' Wikipedia article at present. IMHO, it would get speedy delete if it was here during BigSpeedyDelete operation. In fact, the article is not that bad, but it still contains some gaps. Measure error distribution (mentioned above) is one of them; from probabilistic point of view, infinite divisibility and stability sections while needed, are, ekhem, underdeveloped to put it mildly. I guess I could find some more examples of this kind at request -- but this is not my aim to criticize without working on it. Further, in part the text is written in form of a 'reference manual', just bare facts with no meaning/explanation. As it stands, it could be very useful for professionals who already know the subject -- but is this consistent with what we want to develop as CZ style of general purpose encyclopedia? See CZ:Article mechanics. I'd rather suggest that if no further development occurs, the article is to be... deleted. --AlekStos 07:38, 22 April 2007 (CDT)
PS. I believe that our first approved article in Math should be gamma function.
- Aleks, again one which bases deeply in chemistry and physics, I will add the appropriate workgroups. As far as for instance data analysis and error correction or reduction is concerned I am planning an article on that topic. For that reason the basic description of the distributions that are known in statistics is enough to serve their purpose. The interpretation of the dull and boring facts can be described when they reflect the application of these distributions. Robert Tito | Talk 16:29, 22 April 2007 (CDT)
- Contrary to the gamma function the distributions do need being explained by their application in real life problems and experimental data. I do agree with you however the gamma function is in a further stage of development than gauss. Robert Tito | Talk 16:36, 22 April 2007 (CDT)