Talk:Complete spatial randomness

	This 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
???	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.

Mathematics Stub‑class Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Expert tag

I have added this tag for two reasons. The context/assumptions are poorly defined ...is it being assumed that the distribution is spatially uniform as nothing here precludes non-uniform distributions (the actual contexts of the equations are poorly specified)? Secondly, if non-uniform distributions are excluded then various tests against a uniform or non-clustered non-hypothesis are available which could be linked or outlined. Melcombe (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was removed after improving the question of whether non-uniform distributions were included. I have reapplied it, as the question of useful information about testing the "complete spatial randomness" model is still open. Melcombe (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.

A poorly written article. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reference to random numbers articles in end-references, such as the simplest of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_randomness

And spatial randomness need not be added, as it is not clear what you are referring to, other than random numbers on a sample space. And CLEARLY a random distribution (statistical randomness) system will produce a random space on sampling, in zero, one, two, through N dimensions. And "complete" is a dangerous word to use because complete is a mathematical word used of systems, and can easily be confused. Noone in science math lingustics would ever use that word this way. So complete spatial randomness sounds like a specific concept, that you end up not actually describing, because the language of science and math is very specific. I understand what you mean (and see the redundancy and incompleteness causing ineffectiveness of the article word use), exactly, but the layman reader will often be misled by such articles, best left as user talk pages. I may be the only reader who can read you and understand you, in this manner, because I AM also a linguist. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dangers of your article dialect reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness

What you refer to specifically, as a possible synonymous industiral term, is already covered in Stationary Processes, and to some extent cover Wide Sense Stationary processes (WSS) process, which both cover 1-D, 2-D, N-D processes. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_sense_stationary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationary_process

But lacking cross references to standard terminology, to link your specific synonymous term, makes it difficult for layman to understand, for synonymous and standard terminology. This is pedagogically suspect. I understand exactly what you mean, but that is just myself, who is a well read "Dragon". Referenceless articles like this actually hurt my well-read eyes. That is why I refer to Microscan and Superresolution interchangeably in my comments on that article, so that the layman can see the university universe of related terms that may be in common use and less common use. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your bibliography article now doesn't download, when I tested it. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA291151&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf