Le 13 nov. 08 à 19:35, Randall Reetz a écrit :
Thank you Francois,
Can statistics be rigorously derived from proability math? I hope so.
yes, that is the "clean" way, which is, by the way, the best suited
for academic teaching.
Both are heavily dependent on what appears to be statistics ("both"
refers here to my twin gods). I am a self admitted thermodynamics
and information science freak. I'd hate to think that my whole
world was anecdotally argued. I do see a strange but familiar
symmetry between the finite/infinite distinction that seperates
probability theory and practice, and the open/closed system maths
that seperates the thermodynamic engineering from pure science.
Randall
I dug up my old textbooks on statistical physics (which is another
word for thermodynamics) and the textbook is entirely based on
probabilistic methods. The official motivation for statistical physics
is that, for "macroscopic" systems, the behaviour of" individual"
elements are not observable, so you only have access to their
statistics.
I won't digress more on this subject, as it is OT. Just one last word:
even in you stick to deterministic models, sampling, aka A/D
converters, is a tricky issue, for reasons which are similar to
experiments on probabilistically modeled systems: the data set that is
accessible to you is of measure zero with respect to the (hidden) set
of data that lives in the model. In practice, unless you enforce
stronger assumptions on the model, there is now way to bring
contradiction to the mathematical model by means of a suitable
experiment.
Now, back to rev...
cheers
François
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
