Difference between revisions of "Talk:Probability density function"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
BRichtigen (talk | contribs) (Continuity of a pdf) |
(great catch, updated accordijngly) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Obviously, a probability density function isn't necessarily continuous, take, e.g., the uniform distribution on [0,1] which has a rectangular function as pdf. I changed this in the article. | Obviously, a probability density function isn't necessarily continuous, take, e.g., the uniform distribution on [0,1] which has a rectangular function as pdf. I changed this in the article. | ||
--[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:01, 6 December 2008 (EST) | --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:01, 6 December 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Definition? == | ||
| + | Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but doesn't criterion (3) follow from criterion (1)? If that's the case it ought to be stated as a theorem and not part of the definition. (Of course, the reverse implication doesn't hold without a continuity assumption, so these aren't equivalent statements.) --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 01:06, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : You're right. Great catch, and I've updated the entry accordingly. Please feel free to improve further yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:36, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 12:36, August 31, 2009
Continuity of a pdf
Obviously, a probability density function isn't necessarily continuous, take, e.g., the uniform distribution on [0,1] which has a rectangular function as pdf. I changed this in the article. --BRichtigen 08:01, 6 December 2008 (EST)
Definition?
Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but doesn't criterion (3) follow from criterion (1)? If that's the case it ought to be stated as a theorem and not part of the definition. (Of course, the reverse implication doesn't hold without a continuity assumption, so these aren't equivalent statements.) --MarkGall 01:06, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
- You're right. Great catch, and I've updated the entry accordingly. Please feel free to improve further yourself.--Andy Schlafly 08:36, 31 August 2009 (EDT)