|WikiProject Statistics||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
It looks as if the formulas given here find the median of the distribution, given the parameters, rather than the median of a "set of data", as advertised in the first paragraph. A "set of data" would be a finite list of numbers, on which estimates of the parameters would be based, including an estimate of the population media. The article doesn't say how to find that estimate given a finite list of observations. That seems to be promised by the opening sentence. Could someone add that? Michael Hardy 00:51 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)
It's been more than three years, and no one's fixed this. I don't know the topic, but I'm tempted to edit according to my surmises.
- "to find the median of a set of data" makes no sense! Here is my surmise: It is intended to estimate the median of a population from which the data were taken as a sample. Obviously the proposed method will not find the median of the data!
- I surmise that κ is intended to be the lower bound of the support of the distribution and θ the Pareto index. If so, the article should say so!!
- What are the "categories" referred to??????? My surmise is that either the data are expressed as ranges---thus "19% of the individuals in the sample had incomes between $28000 per year and $33000 per year" etc., or else that the person using this technique is expected to put the data into that form first---in which case it wouldn't hurt to at least mention the issue of where to draw the boundaries. Either way, the "categories" need to get explained!
- It looks to me as if a non-statistican learned this in an economics course and doesn't know how to think about these sorts of things, and wrote this article.
Michael Hardy 23:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
...now I've looked on both Google Scholar and the Current Index to Statistics data base and I cannot find "Pareto Interpolation". A reference would help! Michael Hardy 23:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- ... and now I've worked through the math carefully and it has become clear what must have been intended. I'll be back Monday, when I'll probably re-write this article from scratch. Michael Hardy 02:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've substantially re-written this thing. It could still use some references. Michael Hardy 23:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)