User talk:Skbkekas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Skbkekas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


Simple metatest for Multiple comparisons[edit]

A big thanks for the expansion on Multiple comparisons - A colleague of mine has found the discussion on assessing whether any alternative hypotheses are true very helpful with his PhD work. We were wondering if there is any kind of reference/citation for this that could be used in a formal setting, since citing Wikipedia is not really an option. We've had poor luck finding one through other means. :/ Thanks in advance for any help! Sini Ruohomaa (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Generalized normal distribution[edit]

Nice work on the Generalized normal distribution article. There is a less detailed article Generalized Gaussian distribution which seems to refer to the same distribution. I've proposed a merge, but need to decide which name to use. Feel free to comment here Talk:Generalized Gaussian distribution. cheers -3mta3 (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the above discussion on to Talk:Generalized normal distribution in case you don't spot it. I have also opened a more general discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics as there may be more difficult cases. Melcombe (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cross-validation[edit]

Apparently there are uses of the term "cross-validation" (in analytical chemistry and psychology) that are completely unrelated to its meaning in statistics. Some edits have been made to the cross-validation page regarding one of the other uses. It's so completely unrelated that it seems to belong on a different page. I'm inclined to add a disambiguation page and move the current page to cross-validation (statistics). But I thought I would ask for comments first. Skbkekas (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think the one in chemistry is completely unrelated to the one in statistics? To me it seems obvious that it's a very similar idea. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Liked your edit to expression profiling. Thanks.

Tombadog (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Population variance[edit]

Hi. Can I ask why you created Population variance when you already seemed to be aware of the True variance article, as evidenced by your inclusion of the {{mergefrom}} tag from the very beginning? If you wanted to move True variance to Population variance you could have just done that instead, instead of couching this as a merger. Btyner (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The true variance article is on a related but distinct topic from the population variance article that I wrote, so it seemed reasonable to me to create the population variance article as an independent article. As a separate issue, the true variance article distinguishes itself from the usual notion of population variance on dubious grounds. So it also seemed reasonable to simultaneously suggest merging the two. From my reading of talk:true variance, the true variance article was one person's attempt to define his own term. It is in some ways similar to the usual notion of population variance, but when that individual wanted to diverge from the usual definition, he justified it by saying that he was working from the perspective of data analysis rather than sampling theory, or that his definition was a "computational definition." It's clear from the comments that this was viewed as dubious reasoning by a number of other people. The most blatant problems have been smoothed out, but it is still a problematic article . So to summarize my reasoning, I felt there was room for an article on the population variance as conventionally defined. Independently of that, I also thought it was appropriate to discuss whether there is a need to retain the current true variance page. That article is badly written, is pointlessly restricted to finite sets, and perpetuates the incorrect idea that using n in the denominator of a variance formula turns it into something that is "true" even if it comes from a sample. Skbkekas (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
In total agreement that true variance was historically problematic. At this point I would be in favor of blanking and redirecting it to your population variance. I'd be surprised if another editor objected to this. Btyner (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Page titles[edit]

Information.svg Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Comparisonwise error rate a different title by copying its content and pasting it into False positive rate. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Hmm, on further analysis, it looks like it wasn't a straight cut-and-paste after all; however, it was confusing given the edit histories. It would be better, if this situation were to arise again, to leave an edit summary on the "old" page that explains more clearly what you are doing (redirecting to a new article on a related topic). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks. Skbkekas (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Threshold in piecewise regression analysis[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Threshold in piecewise regression analysis, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threshold in piecewise regression analysis. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Computational formula for the variance[edit]

Hi, you recently made an edit to Computational formula for the variance where the summary said, "Remove recent additions that are unrelated to computation, and restore recently deleted material that is related to computation." On the talk there I have a question along the lines of, "what is the point of this article?" Would you mind contributing to that. I don't understand what is meant by, "computation." I also don't like you edit (who cares that a unbiased estimator exists for a quantity nobody cares about?) 018 (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Numerical methods for linear least squares[edit]

Given your past involvement, you might like to take part in the discussion at Talk:Numerical methods for linear least squares Melcombe (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

significance of results[edit]

Hello,

During some mathematical study, I have met the need to estimate the probability of my results be a random deviation from zero. In other words, I want to test the null-hypothesis.

I have seen the plot showing the minimum value of Pearson's sample correlation coefficient that would be significant at the 0.05 level for a given sample size, and I would like to know the function this graph is representing, and how it is derived. If it is possible to give a link to some paper about this, it would also help me a lot.

Thanks from ahead!

Yair111 (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC[edit]

You are invited to comment on the following probability-related RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)