Talk:Uniform distribution (discrete)
|Uniform distribution (discrete) has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Mathematics. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|WikiProject Statistics||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
EDITORS! Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Probability#Standards for a discussion of standards used for probability distribution articles such as this one.
There's quite a lot in this article that I would not buy into. The restriction that parameters and points of support be integers is not necessary. Rather, n equally likely events can be inscribed into any interval, and the formula n=b-a+1 then no longer holds.
Also, the statement that "The convention is used that the cumulative mass function Fk(ki) is the probability that k > = ki" seems mistaken, the correct version being "The convention is used that the cumulative mass function Fk(ki) is the probability that k < = ki". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Mean and Variance
Shouldn't both of these be the sum of ni/n, (that is, the sum of the point values divided by the number of points)? (a+b)/2 only works if you have a discrete uniform distribution with only two points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beefpelican (talk • contribs) 14:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Note the paragraph at top which reads: "In case the values of a random variable with a discrete uniform distribution are real, it is possible to express the cumulative distribution function in terms of the degenerate distribution; thus"
1) I believe I know what it's trying to say, but it's wildly ambiguous. A simple syntactic rewrite would make this much clearer, as in "When a random variable has discrete values which are not integers..."
2) Since this is an expansion of the original thought to real-valued discrete variables, perhaps the original (simpler) thought should just be continued; ie - put this paragraph further down the article after the discussion about integer values has been more fully developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)