Talk:Mathematical statistics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Redirect to statistics

This article was started back in 2004 with the comment I really think we should separate MATH stat from APPLIED stat as much as possible, since a very different audience is interested in each and has grown little since then. The content here pretty much duplicates that in Statistics. I would say this has largely been a failed endevor and we would better off redirecting it to Statistics or possibly Statistical theory. --Salix alba (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; applied statistics was redirected to statistics as well recently. Richard001 04:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Perhaps this article could be developed, but given that that hasn't happened yet, I think a redirect is in order. JJL 12:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's really feasible to separate math stat from applied stat or to attempt to categorise articles as one or the other. However I still think an article with this title could be useful, though I don't think it's vital to a maths encyclopedia. I've therefore downgraded its importance rating from Top to Mid. I don't think it needs to be a long article but it clearly needs some expansion so i've left it as stub-class. --Qwfp (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As the creator of the original article at this title (which was very different from the current incarnation, BTW), I have no objection to making it a redirect to Statistics. If I ever get the notion to flesh out my original idea some more, I can resurrect it from the page history (assuming it's still a redirect and hasn't been deleted completely). - dcljr (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Downgrade

I'm downgrading this from Top priority to Mid priority after checking WP:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0#Importance_rating_scheme as I don't think an article with this title is "very much needed, even vital" to a maths encyclopedia. If you disagree, please explain why by adding a Comment here. --Qwfp (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was moved here from Talk:Mathematical statistics/Comments. - dcljr (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Mathematical statistics vs theoretical statistics

I once picked up a book on Mathematical Statistics in a bookshop that said in its introduction that it's purpose was "to build mathematical statistics, as opposed to theoretical statistics" (or it might have been vice-versa). However it didn't explain the distinction and I didn't buy the book. Can anyone enlighten me? If so, could you add something to the article? --Qwfp (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO, there's no real difference between the two terms; they both refer to a mathematically rigorous treatment of the subject. But perhaps a distinction could be made based on whether you actually state and prove theorems along the way? - dcljr (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Data analysis

The article previously divided statistics into two parts, inferential and descriptive, but failed to mention randomized experiments and random samples. I tried to bring this article a bit more in agreement with the ASA recommendations for a first course in statistics for non-statisticians, by bringing in randomized experiments and random sampling early. This is consistent with the elementary books of David A. Freedman and David S. Moore. Thank you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the question is ... why is this being said in this article, rather than in the statistics article? If it remains, its relevance to the topic of "mathematical statistics" needs to be pointed out somehow. (This applies to the whole of that section not just this revision.) Melcombe (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not add the section on statistics being divided into two parts, descriptive and inferential, I merely corrected the error. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to statistics, part 2

See comments above, in 2008 people agreed to end this article because of duplication with the Statistics article, and I fully agree. Why hasn't it happened yet? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed! Editors! Please destroy this page!! It has recently turned into a bad joke with a change that occurred here, as far as I can tell, [1] ... That change is tantamount to vandalism (do I have to explain that? anybody who knows anything about the field would get a good laugh out of this childish nonsense, "which was originally conceived as the science of the state — the collection and analysis of facts about a country: its economy, land, military, population, and so forth. ")

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.204.219 (talk) 15 January 2015