Jump to content

Talk:Probability box

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 23:53, 21 January 2012 (typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconMathematics C‑class Low‑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.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.
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.

Three formulations of the constraints expressed by a p-box

There are different ways (shown below) to formulate the displayed constraints in the section 'Mathematical definition'. Each seems to have disadvantages. A formulation based on Riemann-Stieltjes integrals introduces the notation dF(x), which will likely be foreign to a lot of readers. We could formulate the integrals in terms of the quasi-inverse of the distribution function, but then we'd need to explain quasi-inverses. Or, we could use a formulation suggested by the entry Variance#Calculation from the CDF, but that requires identifying the minimum possible value of the random x-value. Currently, the entry uses the first of these options. Does anyone have suggestions about how to express the constraints?

Scwarebang (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


F (x) ≤ F(x) ≤ F(x),

-∞
x dF(x) m,

-∞
x2dF(x)) – (∫
-∞
x dF(x))2 v, and
F F.

These Riemann-Stieltjes integrals do not depend on the differentiability of F.


F (x) ≤ F(x) ≤ F(x),
1
0
F -1(u)du m,
1
0
F -1(u)2du(∫ 1
0
F -1(u)du)2 v, and
F F

where F -1 is the quasi-inverse of F. These formulations do not depend on the invertibility of F but only on its monotonicity.


F (x) ≤ F(x) ≤ F(x),

a
(1 – F(xa))dx m,
2
a
(xa)(1 – F(xa))dx(∫
a
(1 –F(xa))dx)2 v, and
F F

where a = supF(x)=0 x is the smallest possible value of the random variable.


Adjective to describe bounds that really do bound

Because of the commonness of ideas such as confidence intervals, unmodified words like 'interval' and 'bounds' do not necessarily convey to a reader the idea that all possible values are within a specified range. So some adjective is required to indicate when bounds or intervals are assumed or constructed to enclose all possible values.

Different adjectives have been used for this purpose to modify 'bounds' and 'interval' in different fields, including

The article currently uses the word 'rigorous', but this may be misleading to many readers. Can we come to a consensus about the best adjective to use?

The difference between strict intervals and statistical intervals is not addressed in the Wikipedia entry on bounds. Both kinds of bounds represent an implicit guarantee. But in the case of statistical intervals, the guarantee is in terms of some statistical performance in which the interval encloses the value(s) with some specified surety.

Scwarebang (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]