not to disagree with alan but, my goal was to parallel what glass and stanley did and that is all ...seems like there are all kinds of distributions one might discuss AND, there may be more than one order that is acceptable
most books of recent vintage (and g and s was 1970) don't even discuss what g and s did but, just for clarity sake ... are you saying that the nd is a logical SECOND step TO the binomial or, that if you look at the binomial, one could (in many circumstances of n and p) say that the binomial is essentially a nd (very good approximation).. ? the order i had for the nd, chis square, F and t seemed to make sense but, i don't necessarily buy that one NEED to START with the binominal certainly, however, if one talks about the binomial, then the link to the nd is a must At 06:36 PM 2/17/02 -0500, Timothy W. Victor wrote: >I also think Alan's idea is sound. I start my students off with some >binomial expansion theory. > >Alan McLean wrote: > > > > This is a good idea, Dennis. I would like to see the sequence start with > > the binomial - in a very real way, the normal occurs naturally as an > > 'approximation' to the binomial. > > Dennis Roberts, 208 Cedar Bldg., University Park PA 16802 <Emailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> WWW: http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm AC 8148632401 ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =================================================================
