Talk:Phase-type distribution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
C Class
Low Importance
 Field: Probability and statistics
WikiProject Statistics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or join the discussion.

C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 


This Phase-type distribution article is in serious need of revision, or perhaps even reversion, or both! It currently sounds like it has being copied from a text book or an original work. Earlier versions are somewhat more readable. Perhaps it has been over-constructed. -- Cameron Dewe 10:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a mention of 'hyperexponential distribution' that should probably read 'hypoexponential distribution' in 3.1.2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.221.191.89 (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Limit vs special case[edit]

Is the "constant" distribution really a special case? If so, the definition needs to be changed. The limiting distribution requires an infinite-dimensional matrix (m=\infty), but then the absorbing state can't be state \infty+1. It should be state 1.

It would be much easier to say that the constant distribution is not phase-type. (Note that all distributions are the limit of phase type distributions, and so this might server as a useful conter-example, rather than an example. LachlanA (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Easy fix. 129.127.252.4 (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Things to check[edit]

In the box the formula stated for the variance seems to be instead the formula for the mean square. Also much of the article aims to address the case where \alpha_{m+1} is not necessarily zero, but in that case surely the p.d.f. needs to have \alpha_{m+1}\delta(x) adding to it, both in the box and in the main text.Fathead99 (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)