While it is a nice example, it doesn't illustrate the Central limit theorem, whose gist is that the sum is normally distributed. I don't quite know where to put this example though. Maybe in standard deviation or normal distribution? AxelBoldt 21:02 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)
I've encountered another definition of "the" central limit theorem.
My statistics textbook (Mathematical Statistics with Applications, 6th edition, by Wackerly, Mendenhall III, and Scheaffer) defines it in this way:
The HyperStat on-line basic statistics text (http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/sampling_dist) says
I suppose this follows from the definition given in this article. Nonetheless, it is not identical to the one given in the article.
Is there a general trend for more basic/applied statistics books to use this mean-centric definition, while more advanced/theoretical ones use the definition given in the article? Is the definition given in the article better somehow? (I assume the mean-centric definition can be derived from it, but not vice versa.) Should the article also mention the mean-centric definition, since it seems to be somewhat popular?
--Ryguasu 10:52 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)
Maybe I'm getting in over my head here, but do you really need to normalize Sn to say anything precise here? Can't we clarify the first "informal" claim of convergence of Sn by saying, parallel to what AxelBoldt has said for the normalized (i.e. Zn) case
Is there a lurking desire here to state the non-standard normal part as a corollary, rather than as central to the CLT? That might be ok, although the general-purpose version looks more useful to me.
--Ryguasu 01:18 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)
The problem is that on one side of your equality you have a limit as n approaches infinity, so that the value of that side does not depend on anything called n, and which CDF you've got on the other side does depend on the value of n. -- Mike Hardy
Actually, the CDF on the right hand size depends on z, not on n. There are no free ns anywhere. --Ryguasu
It does depend on n, but your notation inappropriately suppresses that dependency. You defined F(z) as the cumulative distribution function of N(nμ,σ2n). AxelBoldt 02:23 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)
Excellent point. Nonetheless, I find it suspicious that someone with more mathematical experience than me can't express the "informal" claim in a rigorous manner. At Talk:Normal distribution, you mentioned "goodness of fit" tests. Couldn't you express the informal version formally, through some limit statement about the results of such a test as the number of samples/trials goes to infinity? --Ryguasu 02:11 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)
Probably, I don't know. But the version given in the article is also a rigorous statement of the "informal" claim you have in mind. AxelBoldt 00:55 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
How about adding some examples? (This is something most of the math pages are lacking.) How about an illustration involving coin flips? I.e., X_n is defined on the probability space [0, 1] so that X_n is 1 with probability 1/2 and -1 with probability 1/2. A series of graphs and equations could be given.
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|