Talk:Latin hypercube sampling
|WikiProject Mathematics||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Statistics||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Was it McKay or McCay? Both spellings are used. McKay 13:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC) That would be Michael McKay, recently retired from Los Alamos National Lab, and Richard Beckman, who retired a few years ago. I imagine Conover also worked with them in the Statistics Division there, but I never knew him. I'm new to Wikipedia, and wonder why they are not credited with the idea, since their publication is 2 years before the other one.Sgeubank 01:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that Iman and Conover co-invented LHS and that Iman was Conover's PhD student. This article's author should check with Inam or Conover. (I first learned of LHS at a presentation by Iman in 1980.) JDR220.127.116.11 14:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The article writes : "The technique was first described by McKay in 1979.". But, technically, the paper is by "McKay et al.", not "McKay" alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
What is being said?
"orthogonal sampling ensures that the ensemble of random numbers is a very good representative of the real variability" "LHS ensures that the ensemble of random numbers is representative of the real variability" Is one being stated as a better representation of real variablity to the other? If so is "very good" better or worse than "is?"Halconen (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't tell what is being stated here at all, or on what basis. Certainly basic random sampling does have some statistical guarantees, and this passage does not describe or explain how the other methods improve on these guarantees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The figure with the examples of the three sampling methods is very informative, but is lacking a caption that will:
1. Relate the three sub-figures to the three methods.
2. Explain what's seen in the third sub-figure (the bold lines are the divisions to sub-spaces, etc.)
Why is the maximum number of designs not 16?
I'm trying to handle this, but when I draw a square (N = 2 variables) with M = 4 devisions, I get a total of 16 possible combinations. So why is the answer 24? I really don't get it... Help :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)