Talk:Independent and identically distributed random variables: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Usage of the phrase "random variables": - IID rvv are NOT an (ordered) sequence |
|||
Line 58:
:This is the first time I've seen IID defined in terms of a ''sequence'' of rvv. Arguably, one (informal) usage of the term ''sequence'' in maths is as a set indexed by the first so many (non-zero) "counting numbers", as above. But the usual connotations of the word ''sequence'' include that the ordering of the elements is essential - that's what most general readers would expect and possibly infer. However, I assert that the order of the elements is '''not''' of the essence in defining IID rvv! To say that it '''is''' essential, we need a better source. [[User:Yahya Abdal-Aziz|yoyo]] ([[User talk:Yahya Abdal-Aziz|talk]]) 23:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
: I agree that there are big problems here. As well as those identified, the word "sequence" usually implies "countable", but sets of non-countably many iid rvs are often defined in the literature (e.g. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022053185900596 here]). The notion of sequence also adds a point of confusion for the reader when the article comes to "independent of the random variables that came before it". What about "after it"? What if there is no natural order? It has to be rewritten without the concept of the rvs coming in some order at all, which isn't so difficult. Then there is the section "Definition" which only defines pairwise independence and I strongly suspect that definition is wrong. [[User:McKay|McKay]] ([[User talk:McKay|talk]]) 03:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
| |||