This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
I think there is enough information here so I can remove the stub tag. There are links to the many other pages that talk about the specifics of samples and sampling. Steve Simon 16:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the introduction and highlighted some topics to be expanded on (e.g., stratified sample) at a later date. Steve Simon 02:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The "Mathematical description" and the "Empirical description" describe different things; this is not just a matter of different ways of looking at the same thing.
If X is a random variable, then the n-tuple (X1,...,Xn), in which the Xi are n i.i.d. clones of X, is itself a (multivariate) random variable. This is what is called "a sample" in the section Mathematical description. A single experimentally observed outcome of this multivariate random variable is what is called "a simple random sample" in the section Empirical description.
I know that the use of the term "sample" to describe outcomes obtained by a sampling process is quite common. Is the "mathematical" meaning in which a sample is a multivariate random variable also common? If so, shouldn't we make it clear that we have two different meanings here (and give citations of sources for the "mathematical" meaning)? If not, the wording of the section on "Mathematical description" should be changed.
(Can someone explain why the first section is called "Empirical description"? It is not as if we observed lots of samples in the field and are now trying to describe, based on our observations, what we saw.)
-- Lambiam 19:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article is flawed. With the exception of a population that is all-inclusive, the population will always be a subset of another population (that is, a sample), and so on -- making the definition circular.
Another problem is with the operationalization of "taking" a sample of some population -- this is never discussed in the definition.
Without some kind of rigourous methodological approach, samples drawn from the same population could have wildly variant statistical characteristics. This shows that sample methodology is an essential statistical element -- but one which the definition neglects.
In other words, there is no way to characterize a discrete sample without also discussing how that sample was created. But this is just what the first sentence attempts to do.
Gsmcghee ( talk) 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Gsmcghee ( talk) 00:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Gsmcghee ( talk) 00:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Every set is a subset of itself anyway.
134.2.18.135 (
talk) 11:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no mention that a sample must be finite. But I can't imagine what an infinite sample is. It would be nice if someone could write something about this, preferably with an example.
Velle ( talk) 08:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I propose that Sample (statistics) and Sampling (statistics) should be merged into one article. I am not a statistician, but it seems to me there is a large overlap between the articles (i.e. a WP:CONTENTFORK), neither of which are too long, and readers would be best served by a single, more comprehensive article. In a recent RfD discussion, there was uncertainty about how to handle redirects for related terms with respect to these articles. I am not sure which title the merged article should have, but perhaps Sample (statistics) would be better, emphasizing the thing (sample) rather than the process of obtaining it, but I have no strong feelings either way. Obviously whichever title is not kept will target the merged article via a redirect. Mdewman6 ( talk) 21:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
I think there is enough information here so I can remove the stub tag. There are links to the many other pages that talk about the specifics of samples and sampling. Steve Simon 16:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the introduction and highlighted some topics to be expanded on (e.g., stratified sample) at a later date. Steve Simon 02:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The "Mathematical description" and the "Empirical description" describe different things; this is not just a matter of different ways of looking at the same thing.
If X is a random variable, then the n-tuple (X1,...,Xn), in which the Xi are n i.i.d. clones of X, is itself a (multivariate) random variable. This is what is called "a sample" in the section Mathematical description. A single experimentally observed outcome of this multivariate random variable is what is called "a simple random sample" in the section Empirical description.
I know that the use of the term "sample" to describe outcomes obtained by a sampling process is quite common. Is the "mathematical" meaning in which a sample is a multivariate random variable also common? If so, shouldn't we make it clear that we have two different meanings here (and give citations of sources for the "mathematical" meaning)? If not, the wording of the section on "Mathematical description" should be changed.
(Can someone explain why the first section is called "Empirical description"? It is not as if we observed lots of samples in the field and are now trying to describe, based on our observations, what we saw.)
-- Lambiam 19:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article is flawed. With the exception of a population that is all-inclusive, the population will always be a subset of another population (that is, a sample), and so on -- making the definition circular.
Another problem is with the operationalization of "taking" a sample of some population -- this is never discussed in the definition.
Without some kind of rigourous methodological approach, samples drawn from the same population could have wildly variant statistical characteristics. This shows that sample methodology is an essential statistical element -- but one which the definition neglects.
In other words, there is no way to characterize a discrete sample without also discussing how that sample was created. But this is just what the first sentence attempts to do.
Gsmcghee ( talk) 00:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Gsmcghee ( talk) 00:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Gsmcghee ( talk) 00:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Every set is a subset of itself anyway.
134.2.18.135 (
talk) 11:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no mention that a sample must be finite. But I can't imagine what an infinite sample is. It would be nice if someone could write something about this, preferably with an example.
Velle ( talk) 08:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I propose that Sample (statistics) and Sampling (statistics) should be merged into one article. I am not a statistician, but it seems to me there is a large overlap between the articles (i.e. a WP:CONTENTFORK), neither of which are too long, and readers would be best served by a single, more comprehensive article. In a recent RfD discussion, there was uncertainty about how to handle redirects for related terms with respect to these articles. I am not sure which title the merged article should have, but perhaps Sample (statistics) would be better, emphasizing the thing (sample) rather than the process of obtaining it, but I have no strong feelings either way. Obviously whichever title is not kept will target the merged article via a redirect. Mdewman6 ( talk) 21:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)