# Talk:Stochastic process

WikiProject Statistics (Rated C-class, Top-importance)

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

WikiProject Mathematics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
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:
 B Class
 Top Importance
Field: Probability and statistics
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.
WikiProject Economics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.
C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

## Stochasticity is from archery

The article should mention that no matter how fancy the statistics get, it's all present in the way arrows group themselves around their intended target, which was a pointed stick stuck in a Greek hillside --- a stochos. 69.105.38.7 (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This etymology is already mentioned in the Stochastic article, which is where I think it belongs. Statisfactions (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

## Random fields vs. Stochastic processes

This article says that a "basic type of a stochastic process is a random field". But the random field article states that it is a generalization of a stochastic process. Which is which? Statisfactions (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

## "C*-algebras of random variables"

There is an opaque mentioning of "C*-algebras of random variables", and the GNS construction in the construction section. Maybe it should say von Neumann algebras to be more specific? Could someone knowledgeable elaborate on that in the article? Presumably this refers to the C*-approach to conditional expectations (although I don't know what GNS has to do with it). Mct mht (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, all this should go to some article about noncommutative probability, or at least to some article about different approaches to probability theory as whole. Why is it mentioned in the article on stochastic processes? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

## Historical information?

It would be nice to have a note on when the concept first appeared in the mathematical literature, and by whom. RMPK (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

## random variables are not natural numbers ?

The article says:"If both t and X_t belong to N, the set of natural numbers, ..." Is this correct ? How can the random variable X_t be a natural number ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.54.36.209 (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It is non-rigorous but quite usual, to say such things as "almost surely, X is a number between a and b", "almost surely, X is an integer" etc., when X is a random variable. Even more non-rigorous and still usual (especially among non-mathematicians) is, to omit the "almost surely". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Simple as it may be, this article, or at least the introduction, are filled with jargon and are not written at an acceptable reading level. I recommended that those who are knowledgeable on the subject matter revise the introduction and make it more accessible to the public. As is, this is unreadable unless the reader has an extensive learning history with statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.169.233 (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, the writing for the specialists can be maintained, and writing for beginners added right after. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
No, hopefully the writing for beginners can be enhanced. Specialist already know the material-- you don't write an encyclopedia article for specialists, you write it for beginners. Put technical details at the end. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

## Heterogeneous process explanation

The Heterogeneous process page routes to this one, but then is not included in the explanation. This would be good to include for those rewriting this. Thanks. Alrich44 (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stochastic process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

## The Introduction is flawed in a number of ways.

1. Wiki recommend starting with a simple explanation, and gradually adding more complexity; the present Introduction is too complex. Casual readers will be content to read the Introduction, and skim through the rest of the article, but interested students, and we are all students, will move on and read and re-read the article, in conjunction with others.

2. There are factual errors in the Introduction, which need to be rectified. This is important, because the concept under discussion is fundamental, not just to study of probability and statistics, but to engineering as well.

I propose to rewrite the Introduction, but I do not want to do so, without getting agreement from those who feel that they have a stake in maintaining this page; can anyone with such a stake make themselves known? - we can then work jointly on revising the Introduction, to achieve consensus. Systems Analyst 2 (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

As for me, it does start with a simple explanation. Do you think otherwise? And what are the factual errors? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, I propose that we address four levels of reader: 1. casual reader 2. new student 3. intermediate student 4. advanced student. In my view, the Introduction is confusing to a casual reader. I further propose that we address this by using the following model: 1. Provide an example. 2. Formalise the approach. 3. Give examples of use. This can be done for each level of reader. Secondly, there are factual errors: 1. As the term Stochastic Process is used in a generic sense, it is not true to say that it is a time sequence; think of casting dice, for example. The four classifications need to be covered in the Introduction in an orderly way. 2. The Introduction does not clarify the distinction between a Stochastic system and a Deterministic system; they have a degree of overlap; for example, a specific sample from a stochastic process could be indistinguishable from the output of Finite State Machine, or the equivalent Turing Machine, both being purely deterministic; in fact, there is a non-denumerable set of such samples, and their equivalent FSMs. This is of practical significance in cryptography, where keys or one-time-pads need to be 'strong'. I can provide more detail, if this approach meets with agreement.Systems Analyst 2 (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
On the first: your "1. Provide an example. 2. Formalise the approach. 3. Give examples of use." is good, but should all that be done in the lead? Isn't it too long and detailed for the lead (especially, "3")? Well, try to do so, and we'll see.
On the second: I am puzzling, why "casting dice" is not a time sequence? Isn't it a sequence of i.i.d random variables? Also, the problem of pseudo-randomness versus true randomness is good, but again, why already in the lead? Doesn't it overload the lead? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Now I note that you speak about "introduction", not "lead". Many articles contain a lead, then introduction section, then other sections. Do you mean this architecture? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I will try a first draft Introduction, over the next week, and see how long it is; as you say, there could be a Lead, which could be a short summary of the Introduction.
As for the dice; you could cast six fair dice simultaneously, and that would be one sample from a Stochastic Process; there does not have to be an independent variable (time). This is an example of a discrete/discrete case.
Downloading a share-price history is also a sample from an S.P. for that share; it is not a Random Variable, though it is a time history of course; both are simple examples that are intelligible to a general reader, I would think. I tend to find that the formalism is off-putting at first; often it seems too abstract, and even obtuse, and an example breaks the ground.
I checked for other Maths articles of level-B quality and Top Importance, and found the following:
Probability Theory refers to Stochastic Process, hence we need to fit in with that. (I noticed a 'howler' in there.)
Probability Space has an intersection with Probability Theory, but does not refer to S.P.
I am not sure why those two articles are not combined, or why there is not a common 'Head' Article for the two.
Below S.P. in the development of ideas lie: Bayes Theorem, Probability Density Function, Probability Distribution and Random Variable, all level-B & Top Importance.
Markov Chain sits to one side of S.P. Again, I am not sure why it is not combined with S.P.
We need to fit in with this context, I think, as per Wiki's recommendation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Systems Analyst 2 (talkcontribs) 03:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The concept of the Stochastic Process is based on axiomatic Probability Theory [Maybeck, chapter 3]. There are four classifications of Stochastic Process, summarised here [Jazwynski]:

1. Discrete time and discrete state-space, known as Markov Chains.

Wow... Interesting. And problematic.
Interesting, since it could be a helpful introductory/explanatory section in a textbook.
Problematic, since Wikipedia is not a textbook.
Likewise, you could rewrite the article "function" like that: "One classification (or do you mean, class?) of functions, x=f(t), are functions from time to space; these describe a motion of a point (in particular, the barycenter of a material body). Another class..."
However, given a function, say ${\displaystyle \sin :\mathbb {R} \to \mathbb {R} ,}$ you cannot say, whether its argument is time, or money, or something else. Thus, your-style classification is not a classification of functions (as mathematical objects), but rather a classification of their real-world applications.
Yes, I am a mathematician and you are not, and accordingly, I treat mathematical objects and you treat their real-world applications. This itself is OK. However, your thinking (cogitation) may appear in Wikipedia only if it can be sourced. Have you a "reliable source" (preferably textbook) that conforms to your text? If you have, please provide. Otherwise, try to publish your cogitation elsewhere. Maybe, on Wikiversity? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
A good reference is "Stochastic Models, Estimation and Control, Volume 1" by Peter S. Maybeck, Academic Press 1979. What I wrote is a bit long for an Intro, but it could be used in the section "Classification" of the main article; a precis might serve as an Introduction. I agree that the mathematical viewpoint and the systems analysis viewpoint are different, as in s.a. we use less rigour, but stochastic processes are very important in engineering and financial engineering, hence we need to embrace both viewpoints in the article, I feel. I could use the above to revise the Classification section, and provide a draft here in Talk. Systems Analyst 2 (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'll look at this book. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Looking at Sect. 4 of the book by Maybeck, I do not see any essential deviation of his terminology from the terminology used by mathematicians. In particular, "stochastic process" is still a mathematical object (rather than a real-world application of the mathematical object). I do not see coin tossing there, but still, a finite family of independent random variables, each with two equiprobable values (0 and 1), is a mathematical object (often called Bernoulli process); its real-world applications include both repeated toss of a single coin, and a one-time toss of a finite collection of coins.
Many other thoughts contained in your text above also are not contained in that book, as far as I see for now. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

## Applications Section

I think the entirety of the article is well-cited and gives a good picture of what stochastic processes are. My one concern after reading the article is that I don't know how they are used. I'd like to propose an applications section, with a couple of examples from different fields. For example, we could have a few sentences about financial applications, a few about weather prediction models, and a few more sentences about some scientific (biology or chemistry?) application. Anyone who has worked with an application should feel free to contribute to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaley17 (talkcontribs) 17:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)