![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Whow. This page has suddenly changed a lot. I like a lot of the new contents of this page as it suddenly adds to the understanding of Price's equation, however, I think it has lost a lot of its encyclopedic value since the huge edit by PAR on 23 Nov 2004. A couple of reasons for this comment are:
I assume there are different views possible on these comments.
-- Anthony Liekens 11:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You've just listed a bunch of misgivings I've had myself. I thought well, I'll just do it and see what people think. I would not be offended by any of the rewrites you suggest, and I think I will undertake some of them myself unless you beat me to it. Let's make it a good page. The objections I have to your list are:
Another thing I would like to include how kin selection is handled by the Price equation, but I don't feel like I understand it well enough right now to write anything.
Paul Reiser 15:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To comment on the old discussion here, it may be useful to define expectation and covariance here because the definitions used here are not the actual definitions of expectation and covariance. The Price equation uses the expectation operator and the covariance function for simplicity; however, the actual definitions of these things are based on estimates from a population. That is, the Price equation really relates ARITHMETIC MEANS from one population to the immediate next population. It says nothing about "expectation" and "covariance." In order to make a statement about expectation and covariance, one would have to introduce probability. However, Price equation has nothing to do with probability. At best, it is a statistical statement.
It would be nice to get rid of ALL references to expectation and covariance and just speak of averages. However, due to rampant misuse over the years, it is expected that expectation and covariance be used with the Price equation. It's unfortunate.
-- TedPavlic 17:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Added a technical template. This thing badly needs a summary to explain what this equation is in layman's terms, instead of just diving right into the hard math. SineSwiper ( talk) 05:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It makes no sense to me that this article defines expectation and covariance both as means of some property of a finite deterministic population. It seems to me like expectation should simply be mean or average. However, that means that covariance should be replaced with something like mean covariate, where covariate would mean the product of two variates. This actually is similar to the terminology used in ANCOVA.
That being said, it was Price himself who started this whole mess by using these terms. Is it right to reformulate on a Wikipedia page?
I at least think that some extra notes need to be made. Presently using the terms expectation and covariance confuses what the equation actually means. I'm still not sure which terms should be used. Maybe could be used instead of as a compromise?
-- TedPavlic 11:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the article should use the terms given in the literature. For the statistical pedants, the expectation and covariance can be recovered if we consider random draws (with replacement) of entities from the population. The expectation for a random draw is then equal to the population mean, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.37.184 ( talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
"The Price equὈplications in economics." <-- Does anyone know what these applications are? The Price equation certainly looks like something that would be used somewhere in economics but I don't recall actually seeing it anywhere (and assuming this isn't some kind of confusion with "price" as in cost of a good). Thanks! radek ( talk) 21:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It has no applications in economics, simply because economics know the difference between probability theory and statistics. It also has no applications in physics, for the same reasons. See evolutionandgames.com/price — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.5.9.33 ( talk) 11:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
It might be useful if the article actually informs the reader which paper of Price's should be consulted for the Price equation. It would appear to be his 1972 solo author one, but this isn't exactly clear from the text. Can someone who knows fix it? Cheers, -- PLUMBAGO 12:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The price equation is not formally a tautology. Rather, it is a mathematical theorem. The bird example was also not a tautology. See the section " Verifying tautologies" at the Tautology page. Ironically the article linked to the Tautology page.
-- Douglas Theobald ( talk) 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, good. The important message we have to impart is that the Price equation is not a scientific law, its not like Maxwell's equations, or E=mc^2. The bird example is not trivial if it creates an understanding in the reader that no new information is imparted by the Price equation, but rather provides a very intuitively useful way of dealing with the assumptions that have been made. PAR ( talk) 16:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
A | B | |
T | T | T |
T | F | F |
F | T | F |
F | F | T |
Watching The Killing Gene, and freezing the playback when the detectives are reviewing the textbook, "To die for: Theories of ALTRUISM", the text in the book seems to be an earlier version of the "Price Equation" Wikipedia article, stripped of it's blue text links. Probably not worthy of an added note in a Popular Culture section, but another interesting bit of art imitating Wikipedia. :) 24.235.163.41 ( talk) 01:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
First of all thanks to everyone who contributed to this. I am a working at understanding mathematical formalisms of evolution and currently at work on a simple agent based simulation (NetLogo) that should illustrate this equation nicely--that is, IF i understand the equation correctly. Here are some questions: Covariance usually has units, right? But the wi term is dimensionless because it is a ratio of populations. WHAT kind of number is zi? Or to put the question another way, is the Covariance term in the Price equation insensitive to how you measure traits? Thanks. 67.139.71.34 ( talk) 15:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I am at a bit of a loss for words on how to comment. By way of standing, I am a PhD statistician in biological applications from UCB with post-doctoral work in population genetics under L L Cavalli-Sforza. The statistical language used in this article is quite loose, and the evolution/genetics/fitness stuff is only a little better. I could rewrite it, but it would be a big effort and I am not certain that it would be accepted. So I will content myself with suggesting that you get some really top-notch folks to help you with revising this article stylistically. Feel free to contact me privately if there is some way I can help. dave1 at wcf dot com. Gomberg ( talk) 19:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Whow. This page has suddenly changed a lot. I like a lot of the new contents of this page as it suddenly adds to the understanding of Price's equation, however, I think it has lost a lot of its encyclopedic value since the huge edit by PAR on 23 Nov 2004. A couple of reasons for this comment are:
I assume there are different views possible on these comments.
-- Anthony Liekens 11:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You've just listed a bunch of misgivings I've had myself. I thought well, I'll just do it and see what people think. I would not be offended by any of the rewrites you suggest, and I think I will undertake some of them myself unless you beat me to it. Let's make it a good page. The objections I have to your list are:
Another thing I would like to include how kin selection is handled by the Price equation, but I don't feel like I understand it well enough right now to write anything.
Paul Reiser 15:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To comment on the old discussion here, it may be useful to define expectation and covariance here because the definitions used here are not the actual definitions of expectation and covariance. The Price equation uses the expectation operator and the covariance function for simplicity; however, the actual definitions of these things are based on estimates from a population. That is, the Price equation really relates ARITHMETIC MEANS from one population to the immediate next population. It says nothing about "expectation" and "covariance." In order to make a statement about expectation and covariance, one would have to introduce probability. However, Price equation has nothing to do with probability. At best, it is a statistical statement.
It would be nice to get rid of ALL references to expectation and covariance and just speak of averages. However, due to rampant misuse over the years, it is expected that expectation and covariance be used with the Price equation. It's unfortunate.
-- TedPavlic 17:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Added a technical template. This thing badly needs a summary to explain what this equation is in layman's terms, instead of just diving right into the hard math. SineSwiper ( talk) 05:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It makes no sense to me that this article defines expectation and covariance both as means of some property of a finite deterministic population. It seems to me like expectation should simply be mean or average. However, that means that covariance should be replaced with something like mean covariate, where covariate would mean the product of two variates. This actually is similar to the terminology used in ANCOVA.
That being said, it was Price himself who started this whole mess by using these terms. Is it right to reformulate on a Wikipedia page?
I at least think that some extra notes need to be made. Presently using the terms expectation and covariance confuses what the equation actually means. I'm still not sure which terms should be used. Maybe could be used instead of as a compromise?
-- TedPavlic 11:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the article should use the terms given in the literature. For the statistical pedants, the expectation and covariance can be recovered if we consider random draws (with replacement) of entities from the population. The expectation for a random draw is then equal to the population mean, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.37.184 ( talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
"The Price equὈplications in economics." <-- Does anyone know what these applications are? The Price equation certainly looks like something that would be used somewhere in economics but I don't recall actually seeing it anywhere (and assuming this isn't some kind of confusion with "price" as in cost of a good). Thanks! radek ( talk) 21:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It has no applications in economics, simply because economics know the difference between probability theory and statistics. It also has no applications in physics, for the same reasons. See evolutionandgames.com/price — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.5.9.33 ( talk) 11:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
It might be useful if the article actually informs the reader which paper of Price's should be consulted for the Price equation. It would appear to be his 1972 solo author one, but this isn't exactly clear from the text. Can someone who knows fix it? Cheers, -- PLUMBAGO 12:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The price equation is not formally a tautology. Rather, it is a mathematical theorem. The bird example was also not a tautology. See the section " Verifying tautologies" at the Tautology page. Ironically the article linked to the Tautology page.
-- Douglas Theobald ( talk) 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, good. The important message we have to impart is that the Price equation is not a scientific law, its not like Maxwell's equations, or E=mc^2. The bird example is not trivial if it creates an understanding in the reader that no new information is imparted by the Price equation, but rather provides a very intuitively useful way of dealing with the assumptions that have been made. PAR ( talk) 16:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
A | B | |
T | T | T |
T | F | F |
F | T | F |
F | F | T |
Watching The Killing Gene, and freezing the playback when the detectives are reviewing the textbook, "To die for: Theories of ALTRUISM", the text in the book seems to be an earlier version of the "Price Equation" Wikipedia article, stripped of it's blue text links. Probably not worthy of an added note in a Popular Culture section, but another interesting bit of art imitating Wikipedia. :) 24.235.163.41 ( talk) 01:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
First of all thanks to everyone who contributed to this. I am a working at understanding mathematical formalisms of evolution and currently at work on a simple agent based simulation (NetLogo) that should illustrate this equation nicely--that is, IF i understand the equation correctly. Here are some questions: Covariance usually has units, right? But the wi term is dimensionless because it is a ratio of populations. WHAT kind of number is zi? Or to put the question another way, is the Covariance term in the Price equation insensitive to how you measure traits? Thanks. 67.139.71.34 ( talk) 15:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I am at a bit of a loss for words on how to comment. By way of standing, I am a PhD statistician in biological applications from UCB with post-doctoral work in population genetics under L L Cavalli-Sforza. The statistical language used in this article is quite loose, and the evolution/genetics/fitness stuff is only a little better. I could rewrite it, but it would be a big effort and I am not certain that it would be accepted. So I will content myself with suggesting that you get some really top-notch folks to help you with revising this article stylistically. Feel free to contact me privately if there is some way I can help. dave1 at wcf dot com. Gomberg ( talk) 19:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |