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 articles
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 articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
Ceiling function
The same way the symbols used for the floor function are explained (in the Infobox-cdf), shouldn't the symbols for the ceiling function be also defined (appear in the "Infobox-mode" of the function)?
193.136.147.158 (
talk) 13:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Adding a section on the CDF
Would it make sense to add a subsection for the CDF under the definitions, like there is for the
Binomial distribution?
FynnFreyer (
talk) 19:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Modelled after the linked section it could look like this:
(note that this is poorly implemented, and that it overflows for μ ≥ 144).
In view of this, it's pretty clear that the mistake in the source is a typo rather than an actual mathematical error. Still, it's a problem... Especially since I wouldn't know where to find a source for this kind of statement. It's not too hard to see that the statement should be true for large (e.g, because the variables can be coupled in such a way that is a random walk whose increments are centered and have variance 1), but even if someone provides a proof here, it might be considered
original research.
As far as I'm concerned:
the fact that there is a mistake is not a huge problem, since it's clearly a typo; but I understand that some people might disagree;
the fact that there is no proof in the source is a bigger problem;
I think the statement is cool, but it's relevance is actually not so clear.