Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a23503449e832407

Jump to content

Talk:Compound probability distribution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago by 2A02:1210:2642:4A00:C9E4:9F6:5E99:526E in topic The proof is muddled

Exponential-inverse gamma

[edit]

The article contains the text "Compounding an exponential distribution with parameter distributed according to an inverse gamma distribution yields a pareto distribution." I am not sure this works and https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/646852/compound-of-gamma-and-exponential-distribution suggests that it should be an exponential-gamma mixture. I don't have a reference for this though. 217.44.78.244 (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The proof is muddled

[edit]

In the subsection Proof, there are unnecessary and confusing simplifications and misleading or mistaken notation.

1) There is no good reason to write and as if they are parametrized by mean and standard deviation. In fact, it is misleading, because we are given only that is parametrized by , and is fixed. The other three quantities are outcomes, not parameters.

Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that the relation between and is bijective, so reparametrization to make them equal might not be possible.

2) Writing the variance as is incorrect, since is a random variable and is a constant. (If it is intended to be a random variable, this has not been declared, and moreover, it can't be pulled out of an integral as the quantity is.)

It would be better if

a) The expression were substituted for wherever the latter is being used to denote the mean of , and

b) The variables , , and were deleted, and replaced by the expressions

.

In fact, these quantities are all calculated at some point in the proof as it is written, so the logic and sequencing of the proof don't have to change, just the symbols in the calculations.

2A02:1210:2642:4A00:C9E4:9F6:5E99:526E (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply