?

Log in

No account? Create an account
The Mad Schemes of Dr. Tectonic [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Beemer

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Sep. 23rd, 2005|01:57 pm]
Beemer
A random question for people with science leanings:

I need a probability distribution, but its shape isn't really known. That inclines me to use a gaussian as a generic, because most things are gaussian.

However, it can't produce negative values. What would you use?

Truncate the gaussian below zero? Fold negative values back to positive? Something like a chi-square distribution that looks gaussian once the mean is far from zero?
LinkReply

Comments:
From: toosuto
2005-09-23 02:01 pm (UTC)
I really want to be able to understand everything in this post between the word probability and and the last zero.

Sadly I am incapable of absorbing new information as my brain has garglefilzered it's nuero-rhuemitizer.

Plus my science leanings are not at nearly acute enough anlge to count.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dpolicar
2005-09-23 02:22 pm (UTC)
surely you know what negative values are!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: toosuto
2005-09-23 02:32 pm (UTC)

OK, fine be all literall and stuff: A clarification? Correction? Some stuff anyway:

I really want to be able to understand everything in this post between the words probability and produce and then truncate and the last zero.

Sadly I am incapable parsing even the request in a reasobale manner because my schnitzel is sans noodles

Plus my science leanings are not at nearly obtuse enough angle to count.

Plus I probably am deficient in the maths. Are there maths involved?
Because I am bad at them. I blame the girl I was dating when I flunked those one maths.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dr_tectonic
2005-09-23 02:35 pm (UTC)

Re: OK, fine be all literall and stuff: A clarification? Correction? Some stuff anyway:

Oh, there's lots of maths.
It's nearly all math, in fact, with only a tenuous toehold on reality.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: toosuto
2005-09-23 02:41 pm (UTC)

Re: OK, fine be all literal and stuff: A clarification? Correction? Some stuff anyway:

Well at least I have that in common with it today.

Incoherency tastes a lot like chartreuse.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bryree
2005-09-23 03:36 pm (UTC)

Re: OK, fine be all literal and stuff: A clarification? Correction? Some stuff anyway:

Mmmmmmm
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: toosuto
2005-09-23 02:42 pm (UTC)

Pony, Pony, Pony!

And my work has only a tenuous toehold on me as well.


Weeeeeeeeeeeeee!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bryree
2005-09-23 03:45 pm (UTC)

Re: OK, fine be all literall and stuff: A clarification? Correction? Some stuff anyway:

The good news is, I've got a great new verbal attack for those (like me) who don't know what it means:

Hey, why don't you go convolve it with itself in your mind's eye.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: toosuto
2005-09-23 03:52 pm (UTC)

Re: OK, fine be all literall and stuff: A clarification? Correction? Some stuff anyway:

that sounds really painful.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: melted_snowball
2005-09-23 04:53 pm (UTC)

Re: OK, fine be all literall and stuff: A clarification? Correction? Some stuff anyway:

Um. Hmm. Part of me wants to go off and be all "I'm Dr. Math" guy and bore you to tears explaining. But the rest of me knows that on a Friday evening, I should spend more time grinning.

The second part won.

So now I'll just drop that phrase into a conversation next week, and tell you how easily it went.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)