Talk:Estimation theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Statistics (Rated C-class, High-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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Systems  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.
 

Merging[edit]

I think estimation (of what's directly relevant to statistics) should be merged into [[estimation theory). Cburnett 03:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Estimator[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion was do not merge.

I disagree with this merge. Estimation theory and an estimator are not the same. One being a theory on how to estimate and the other being a function of estimation. For example, estimation theory is not the same as the Minimum mean-square error, and vice-versa. I suppose you could say mathematics is not the same as function (mathematics).

Perhaps some material can be exchanged between them, but not a merge. Cburnett 18:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose I agree with above comments, two different things --vossman 04:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Have mercy! I am without knowledge and the only clue I had was the term "estimation theory." Please do not submerge the estimation theory without a reference for those of us with little knowledge. Thanks!


  • Oppose don't think they are identical to merge. Farmanesh (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Closed This seems to have been closed a long time ago. Neither article has merge template at present, so the question hasn't been reopened formally Melcombe (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Against Merge[edit]

Estimation Theory and Statistical Point Estimation are two totally different approaches to the same thing. The nomeclature and methods are almost orthogonal. --Lucas Gallindo 17:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Statistics versus signal processing[edit]

I think a problem with this page is that it is very much focussed on Estimation Theory as it is understood in engineering esp. Signal Processing. There is also a mathematical science called Statistics which treates Estimation (and hence Estimators), Testing (and hence Statistical Tests), and so on. In principle Statistics is applicable in medicine, biology, physics, social science, economics, .... engineering ... law, sport, consumer studies ... . The page on Estimator about which there is discussion above is an example of the topic seen from Statistics. Obviously people from engineering will hardly recognise that it's all, in principle, about the same thing, and vice versa.

The subject of Estimation Theory is: construction, design, evaluation of Estimators! So one hardly needs two different pages with those two titles. I suppose that Interval Estimation is also part of estimation theory, while presently it is only treated under Estimators and not under Estimation !!!

I think there should be a general page on Estimation Theory with subtopics on Estimation theory in engineering etc.. as far as these subfields cannot identifiy themselves with the broad topic Gill110951 08:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Grey box completion and validation[edit]

“See also“ “Grey box completion and validation“ has been removed anonymously without explanation from this and several other topics. Following advice from Wikipedia if there are no objections (please provide your name and reasons), I plan to reinstate the reference in a weeks time.

The removed reference provides additional information on methods of estimating model details. In particular most models are incomplete (i.e. a grey box) and thus need completion and validation. This reference seems to be within the appropriate content of the “See also” section see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#See_also_section.

BillWhiten (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)