Difference between revisions of "Talk:Probability density function"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (redundant definition?)
(great catch, updated accordijngly)
 
Line 6: Line 6:
 
== Definition? ==
 
== 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)
 
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)