Jump to content

Talk:Cantor distribution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Melcombe (talk | contribs) at 15:23, 4 June 2009 (add maths/stats templates). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconStatistics Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconMathematics Stub‑class Mid‑priority
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Funny distribution this one, but nmot as funny as the word "eventuate" that was in the previous version of the article. --Lucas Gallindo 03:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the Oxford English Dictionary:


Michael Hardy 16:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate definition?

Is this distribution also the limiting (as n goes to infinity) distribution of

where the Ri are iid Rademacher distributions? Seems to me that it is, but my proof skills are quite rusty... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since any number in the Cantor set can be (uniquely) expressed, in base 3, as 0.abcd... where a,b,c,d,... are either 0 or 2, then a simple way to simulate this Cantor distribution would be to add iid Bernoullis, scaled to 2/3:

Since Rademacher and Bernoulli are essentially the same distribution, just scaled (), then a simple substitution could prove your expression. Albmont (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I convinced myself in the interim time since asking, but it's good to know I haven't completely lost it.
About the series diverging, I don't see that... all the terms of the product are in [-1, 1], but the terms' limit is +/- 1, depending on the sign of t, so the product part cannot diverge, I would think (I cannot rule out it might be 0 in the limit, but that's OK). Could you elaborate? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the series diverging, I don't see that - neither do I now, but first I swear I saw a Σ instead of the Π! BTW, I tried to use the Bernoulli series to check the formula, but I only came as far as . Albmont (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! The derivation using Rademacher is obvious! Albmont (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]