Are there any examples of a variable being normally distributed that is *not* due to the Central Limit Theorem?Central limit theorem and the law of large numbersCentral limit theorem when the mean is not constantWhy does the central limit theorem work with a single sample?The central limit theorem, What it meansUnderstanding the Central Limit Theorem (CLT)How does the Central Limit Theorem show that the Binomial Distribution is approximately Normal for a large value of n?For which parameters does the Central Limit Theorem work?What distributions don't follow the central limit theorem?How can the central limit theorem hold for distributions which have limits on the random variable?Are there any examples of where the central limit theorem does not hold?
Why is this clock signal connected to a capacitor to gnd?
Mathematica command that allows it to read my intentions
How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?
If human space travel is limited by the G force vulnerability, is there a way to counter G forces?
Can the Meissner effect explain very large floating structures?
GFCI outlets - can they be repaired? Are they really needed at the end of a circuit?
Extract rows of a table, that include less than x NULLs
Method Does Not Exist error message
How does a predictive coding aid in lossless compression?
Why didn't Boeing produce its own regional jet?
Venezuelan girlfriend wants to travel the USA to be with me. What is the process?
Arrow those variables!
How do I handle a potential work/personal life conflict as the manager of one of my friends?
Personal Teleportation: From Rags to Riches
What mechanic is there to disable a threat instead of killing it?
iPad being using in wall mount battery swollen
Why is it a bad idea to hire a hitman to eliminate most corrupt politicians?
Ambiguity in the definition of entropy
Can my sorcerer use a spellbook only to collect spells and scribe scrolls, not cast?
Is there a hemisphere-neutral way of specifying a season?
How would I stat a creature to be immune to everything but the Magic Missile spell? (just for fun)
Is it inappropriate for a student to attend their mentor's dissertation defense?
Why does this cyclic subgroup have only 4 subgroups?
Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO) - How to interpret the index?
Are there any examples of a variable being normally distributed that is *not* due to the Central Limit Theorem?
Central limit theorem and the law of large numbersCentral limit theorem when the mean is not constantWhy does the central limit theorem work with a single sample?The central limit theorem, What it meansUnderstanding the Central Limit Theorem (CLT)How does the Central Limit Theorem show that the Binomial Distribution is approximately Normal for a large value of n?For which parameters does the Central Limit Theorem work?What distributions don't follow the central limit theorem?How can the central limit theorem hold for distributions which have limits on the random variable?Are there any examples of where the central limit theorem does not hold?
$begingroup$
The normal distribution seems unintuitive until you learn the CLT, which explains why it is so prevalent in real life. But does it ever arise as the "natural" distribution for some quantity?
normal-distribution central-limit-theorem
asked 1 hour ago
gardenheadgardenhead
1463
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The normal distribution seems unintuitive until you learn the CLT, which explains why it is so prevalent in real life. But does it ever arise as the "natural" distribution for some quantity?
normal-distribution central-limit-theorem
asked 1 hour ago
gardenheadgardenhead
1463
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The physical theory of diffusion, to the extent it is applicable to any system, predicts Normal distributions of quantities (like temperature or concentration) that originate at a point. Indeed, a great many systems are diffusive (options prices, particle transport in homogeneous media, etc.), suggesting that examples are abundant assuming one is not so naive as to suppose that a Normal distribution must hold exactly out to unrealistically large or small values--that would be a misunderstanding of all physical theory.
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
19 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The normal distribution seems unintuitive until you learn the CLT, which explains why it is so prevalent in real life. But does it ever arise as the "natural" distribution for some quantity?
normal-distribution central-limit-theorem
asked 1 hour ago
gardenheadgardenhead
1463
$endgroup$
The normal distribution seems unintuitive until you learn the CLT, which explains why it is so prevalent in real life. But does it ever arise as the "natural" distribution for some quantity?
normal-distribution central-limit-theorem
normal-distribution central-limit-theorem
asked 1 hour ago
gardenheadgardenhead
1463
asked 1 hour ago
gardenheadgardenhead
1463
asked 1 hour ago
gardenheadgardenhead
1463
asked 1 hour ago
gardenheadgardenhead
1463
asked 1 hour ago
gardenheadgardenhead
1463
1463
$begingroup$
The physical theory of diffusion, to the extent it is applicable to any system, predicts Normal distributions of quantities (like temperature or concentration) that originate at a point. Indeed, a great many systems are diffusive (options prices, particle transport in homogeneous media, etc.), suggesting that examples are abundant assuming one is not so naive as to suppose that a Normal distribution must hold exactly out to unrealistically large or small values--that would be a misunderstanding of all physical theory.
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
19 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The physical theory of diffusion, to the extent it is applicable to any system, predicts Normal distributions of quantities (like temperature or concentration) that originate at a point. Indeed, a great many systems are diffusive (options prices, particle transport in homogeneous media, etc.), suggesting that examples are abundant assuming one is not so naive as to suppose that a Normal distribution must hold exactly out to unrealistically large or small values--that would be a misunderstanding of all physical theory.
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
19 mins ago
$begingroup$
The physical theory of diffusion, to the extent it is applicable to any system, predicts Normal distributions of quantities (like temperature or concentration) that originate at a point. Indeed, a great many systems are diffusive (options prices, particle transport in homogeneous media, etc.), suggesting that examples are abundant assuming one is not so naive as to suppose that a Normal distribution must hold exactly out to unrealistically large or small values--that would be a misunderstanding of all physical theory.
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
19 mins ago
$begingroup$
The physical theory of diffusion, to the extent it is applicable to any system, predicts Normal distributions of quantities (like temperature or concentration) that originate at a point. Indeed, a great many systems are diffusive (options prices, particle transport in homogeneous media, etc.), suggesting that examples are abundant assuming one is not so naive as to suppose that a Normal distribution must hold exactly out to unrealistically large or small values--that would be a misunderstanding of all physical theory.
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
19 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
To an extent I think this this may be a philosophical issue as much as a statistical one.
A lot of naturally occurring phenomena are approximately normally distributed. One can argue
whether the underlying cause of that may be something like the CLT:
Heights of people may be considered as the the sum of many smaller causes (perhaps independent, unlikely identically distributed): lengths of various bones, or results of various gene expressions, or results of many dietary
influences, or some combination of all of the above.Test scores may be considered as the sums of scores on many individual test questions (possibly identically distributed, unlikely entirely independent).
Distance a particle travels in one dimension as a result of Brownian motion in a fluid: Motion may be considered abstractly as a random walk resulting from IID random hits by molecules.
One example where the CLT is not necessarily involved is the dispersion of shots around a bull's eye: The distance from the bull's eye can be modeled as a Rayleigh
distribution (proportional to square root of chi-sq with 2 DF) and the counterclockwise angle from the the positive horizontal axis can be modeled as uniform on $(0, 2pi).$ Then after changing from polar to rectangular coordinates, distances in horizontal (x) and
vertical (y) directions turn out to be uncorrelated bivariate normal. [This is the essence of the Box-Muller transformation, which you can google.] However, the normal x and y coordinates might be considered as the sum of many small inaccuracies is targeting, which might justify a CLT-related mechanism in the background.
In a historical sense, the widespread use of normal (Gaussian) distributions instead of double-exponential (Laplace) distributions to model astronomical observations may be partly due to the CLT. In the early days of the modeling errors of such observations, there was a debate between Gauss and Laplace, each in favor of his own favorite distribution. For various reasons, the normal model has won out. One can argue that one reason for the eventual success of the normal distribution was mathematical convenience based on normal limits of the CLT. This seems to be true even when it is unclear which family of distributions provides the better fit. (Even now, there are still astronomers who feel that the "one best observation" made by
a meticulous, respected astronomer is bound to be a better value than than the average of many observations made by presumably less-gifted observers. In effect, they would prefer no intervention at all by statisticians.)
answered 53 mins ago
BruceETBruceET
6,1881720
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yep. Still fixing typos. Thanks for noticing this one. Same error in 'test scores' also fixed.
$endgroup$
– BruceET
26 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Lots of naturally occurring variables are normally distributed. Heights of humans? Size of animal colonies?
answered 1 hour ago
HappyHappy
112
New contributor
Happy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
But are those examples really normally distributed, or is that just a useful approximation? True normally distributed random variables take negative values with positive probability.
$endgroup$
– Artem Mavrin
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Happy Actually neither example given here is normally distributed because the support of the normal distribution is -infinity to +infinity and the examples given can never be zero or less. In each case the normal distribution might be a useful approximation, but not if you were interested in the tails of the distribution.
$endgroup$
– JeremyC
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Human height is the result of the sum of (approximately) independent genes, so they actually are due to the CLT.
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
37 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@ArtemMavrin: getting a negative height would be something like 8+ standard deviations. If one objects to a normal approximation not being valid because it places zero probability mass beyond 8 sd's, you might as well also complain that a truly Normally distributed value is irrational with probability 1, yet all our measurements are rational numbers.
$endgroup$
– Cliff AB
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
@CliffAB that's a fair point, but I never said anything about it not being a valid approximation. In fact, I said that it's a useful approximation, but of course heights are not truly normally distributed
$endgroup$
– Artem Mavrin
27 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "65"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f401055%2fare-there-any-examples-of-a-variable-being-normally-distributed-that-is-not-du%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
To an extent I think this this may be a philosophical issue as much as a statistical one.
A lot of naturally occurring phenomena are approximately normally distributed. One can argue
whether the underlying cause of that may be something like the CLT:
Heights of people may be considered as the the sum of many smaller causes (perhaps independent, unlikely identically distributed): lengths of various bones, or results of various gene expressions, or results of many dietary
influences, or some combination of all of the above.Test scores may be considered as the sums of scores on many individual test questions (possibly identically distributed, unlikely entirely independent).
Distance a particle travels in one dimension as a result of Brownian motion in a fluid: Motion may be considered abstractly as a random walk resulting from IID random hits by molecules.
One example where the CLT is not necessarily involved is the dispersion of shots around a bull's eye: The distance from the bull's eye can be modeled as a Rayleigh
distribution (proportional to square root of chi-sq with 2 DF) and the counterclockwise angle from the the positive horizontal axis can be modeled as uniform on $(0, 2pi).$ Then after changing from polar to rectangular coordinates, distances in horizontal (x) and
vertical (y) directions turn out to be uncorrelated bivariate normal. [This is the essence of the Box-Muller transformation, which you can google.] However, the normal x and y coordinates might be considered as the sum of many small inaccuracies is targeting, which might justify a CLT-related mechanism in the background.
In a historical sense, the widespread use of normal (Gaussian) distributions instead of double-exponential (Laplace) distributions to model astronomical observations may be partly due to the CLT. In the early days of the modeling errors of such observations, there was a debate between Gauss and Laplace, each in favor of his own favorite distribution. For various reasons, the normal model has won out. One can argue that one reason for the eventual success of the normal distribution was mathematical convenience based on normal limits of the CLT. This seems to be true even when it is unclear which family of distributions provides the better fit. (Even now, there are still astronomers who feel that the "one best observation" made by
a meticulous, respected astronomer is bound to be a better value than than the average of many observations made by presumably less-gifted observers. In effect, they would prefer no intervention at all by statisticians.)
answered 53 mins ago
BruceETBruceET
6,1881720
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yep. Still fixing typos. Thanks for noticing this one. Same error in 'test scores' also fixed.
$endgroup$
– BruceET
26 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
To an extent I think this this may be a philosophical issue as much as a statistical one.
A lot of naturally occurring phenomena are approximately normally distributed. One can argue
whether the underlying cause of that may be something like the CLT:
Heights of people may be considered as the the sum of many smaller causes (perhaps independent, unlikely identically distributed): lengths of various bones, or results of various gene expressions, or results of many dietary
influences, or some combination of all of the above.Test scores may be considered as the sums of scores on many individual test questions (possibly identically distributed, unlikely entirely independent).
Distance a particle travels in one dimension as a result of Brownian motion in a fluid: Motion may be considered abstractly as a random walk resulting from IID random hits by molecules.
One example where the CLT is not necessarily involved is the dispersion of shots around a bull's eye: The distance from the bull's eye can be modeled as a Rayleigh
distribution (proportional to square root of chi-sq with 2 DF) and the counterclockwise angle from the the positive horizontal axis can be modeled as uniform on $(0, 2pi).$ Then after changing from polar to rectangular coordinates, distances in horizontal (x) and
vertical (y) directions turn out to be uncorrelated bivariate normal. [This is the essence of the Box-Muller transformation, which you can google.] However, the normal x and y coordinates might be considered as the sum of many small inaccuracies is targeting, which might justify a CLT-related mechanism in the background.
In a historical sense, the widespread use of normal (Gaussian) distributions instead of double-exponential (Laplace) distributions to model astronomical observations may be partly due to the CLT. In the early days of the modeling errors of such observations, there was a debate between Gauss and Laplace, each in favor of his own favorite distribution. For various reasons, the normal model has won out. One can argue that one reason for the eventual success of the normal distribution was mathematical convenience based on normal limits of the CLT. This seems to be true even when it is unclear which family of distributions provides the better fit. (Even now, there are still astronomers who feel that the "one best observation" made by
a meticulous, respected astronomer is bound to be a better value than than the average of many observations made by presumably less-gifted observers. In effect, they would prefer no intervention at all by statisticians.)
answered 53 mins ago
BruceETBruceET
6,1881720
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yep. Still fixing typos. Thanks for noticing this one. Same error in 'test scores' also fixed.
$endgroup$
– BruceET
26 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
To an extent I think this this may be a philosophical issue as much as a statistical one.
A lot of naturally occurring phenomena are approximately normally distributed. One can argue
whether the underlying cause of that may be something like the CLT:
Heights of people may be considered as the the sum of many smaller causes (perhaps independent, unlikely identically distributed): lengths of various bones, or results of various gene expressions, or results of many dietary
influences, or some combination of all of the above.Test scores may be considered as the sums of scores on many individual test questions (possibly identically distributed, unlikely entirely independent).
Distance a particle travels in one dimension as a result of Brownian motion in a fluid: Motion may be considered abstractly as a random walk resulting from IID random hits by molecules.
One example where the CLT is not necessarily involved is the dispersion of shots around a bull's eye: The distance from the bull's eye can be modeled as a Rayleigh
distribution (proportional to square root of chi-sq with 2 DF) and the counterclockwise angle from the the positive horizontal axis can be modeled as uniform on $(0, 2pi).$ Then after changing from polar to rectangular coordinates, distances in horizontal (x) and
vertical (y) directions turn out to be uncorrelated bivariate normal. [This is the essence of the Box-Muller transformation, which you can google.] However, the normal x and y coordinates might be considered as the sum of many small inaccuracies is targeting, which might justify a CLT-related mechanism in the background.
In a historical sense, the widespread use of normal (Gaussian) distributions instead of double-exponential (Laplace) distributions to model astronomical observations may be partly due to the CLT. In the early days of the modeling errors of such observations, there was a debate between Gauss and Laplace, each in favor of his own favorite distribution. For various reasons, the normal model has won out. One can argue that one reason for the eventual success of the normal distribution was mathematical convenience based on normal limits of the CLT. This seems to be true even when it is unclear which family of distributions provides the better fit. (Even now, there are still astronomers who feel that the "one best observation" made by
a meticulous, respected astronomer is bound to be a better value than than the average of many observations made by presumably less-gifted observers. In effect, they would prefer no intervention at all by statisticians.)
answered 53 mins ago
BruceETBruceET
6,1881720
$endgroup$
To an extent I think this this may be a philosophical issue as much as a statistical one.
A lot of naturally occurring phenomena are approximately normally distributed. One can argue
whether the underlying cause of that may be something like the CLT:
Heights of people may be considered as the the sum of many smaller causes (perhaps independent, unlikely identically distributed): lengths of various bones, or results of various gene expressions, or results of many dietary
influences, or some combination of all of the above.Test scores may be considered as the sums of scores on many individual test questions (possibly identically distributed, unlikely entirely independent).
Distance a particle travels in one dimension as a result of Brownian motion in a fluid: Motion may be considered abstractly as a random walk resulting from IID random hits by molecules.
One example where the CLT is not necessarily involved is the dispersion of shots around a bull's eye: The distance from the bull's eye can be modeled as a Rayleigh
distribution (proportional to square root of chi-sq with 2 DF) and the counterclockwise angle from the the positive horizontal axis can be modeled as uniform on $(0, 2pi).$ Then after changing from polar to rectangular coordinates, distances in horizontal (x) and
vertical (y) directions turn out to be uncorrelated bivariate normal. [This is the essence of the Box-Muller transformation, which you can google.] However, the normal x and y coordinates might be considered as the sum of many small inaccuracies is targeting, which might justify a CLT-related mechanism in the background.
In a historical sense, the widespread use of normal (Gaussian) distributions instead of double-exponential (Laplace) distributions to model astronomical observations may be partly due to the CLT. In the early days of the modeling errors of such observations, there was a debate between Gauss and Laplace, each in favor of his own favorite distribution. For various reasons, the normal model has won out. One can argue that one reason for the eventual success of the normal distribution was mathematical convenience based on normal limits of the CLT. This seems to be true even when it is unclear which family of distributions provides the better fit. (Even now, there are still astronomers who feel that the "one best observation" made by
a meticulous, respected astronomer is bound to be a better value than than the average of many observations made by presumably less-gifted observers. In effect, they would prefer no intervention at all by statisticians.)
answered 53 mins ago
BruceETBruceET
6,1881720
edited 28 mins ago
answered 53 mins ago
BruceETBruceET
6,1881720
answered 53 mins ago
BruceETBruceET
6,1881720
answered 53 mins ago
BruceETBruceET
6,1881720
6,1881720
$begingroup$
Yep. Still fixing typos. Thanks for noticing this one. Same error in 'test scores' also fixed.
$endgroup$
– BruceET
26 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yep. Still fixing typos. Thanks for noticing this one. Same error in 'test scores' also fixed.
$endgroup$
– BruceET
26 mins ago
$begingroup$
Yep. Still fixing typos. Thanks for noticing this one. Same error in 'test scores' also fixed.
$endgroup$
– BruceET
26 mins ago
$begingroup$
Yep. Still fixing typos. Thanks for noticing this one. Same error in 'test scores' also fixed.
$endgroup$
– BruceET
26 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Lots of naturally occurring variables are normally distributed. Heights of humans? Size of animal colonies?
answered 1 hour ago
HappyHappy
112
New contributor
Happy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
But are those examples really normally distributed, or is that just a useful approximation? True normally distributed random variables take negative values with positive probability.
$endgroup$
– Artem Mavrin
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Happy Actually neither example given here is normally distributed because the support of the normal distribution is -infinity to +infinity and the examples given can never be zero or less. In each case the normal distribution might be a useful approximation, but not if you were interested in the tails of the distribution.
$endgroup$
– JeremyC
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Human height is the result of the sum of (approximately) independent genes, so they actually are due to the CLT.
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
37 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@ArtemMavrin: getting a negative height would be something like 8+ standard deviations. If one objects to a normal approximation not being valid because it places zero probability mass beyond 8 sd's, you might as well also complain that a truly Normally distributed value is irrational with probability 1, yet all our measurements are rational numbers.
$endgroup$
– Cliff AB
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
@CliffAB that's a fair point, but I never said anything about it not being a valid approximation. In fact, I said that it's a useful approximation, but of course heights are not truly normally distributed
$endgroup$
– Artem Mavrin
27 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Lots of naturally occurring variables are normally distributed. Heights of humans? Size of animal colonies?
answered 1 hour ago
HappyHappy
112
New contributor
Happy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
But are those examples really normally distributed, or is that just a useful approximation? True normally distributed random variables take negative values with positive probability.
$endgroup$
– Artem Mavrin
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Happy Actually neither example given here is normally distributed because the support of the normal distribution is -infinity to +infinity and the examples given can never be zero or less. In each case the normal distribution might be a useful approximation, but not if you were interested in the tails of the distribution.
$endgroup$
– JeremyC
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Human height is the result of the sum of (approximately) independent genes, so they actually are due to the CLT.
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
37 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@ArtemMavrin: getting a negative height would be something like 8+ standard deviations. If one objects to a normal approximation not being valid because it places zero probability mass beyond 8 sd's, you might as well also complain that a truly Normally distributed value is irrational with probability 1, yet all our measurements are rational numbers.
$endgroup$
– Cliff AB
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
@CliffAB that's a fair point, but I never said anything about it not being a valid approximation. In fact, I said that it's a useful approximation, but of course heights are not truly normally distributed
$endgroup$
– Artem Mavrin
27 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Lots of naturally occurring variables are normally distributed. Heights of humans? Size of animal colonies?
answered 1 hour ago
HappyHappy
112
New contributor
Happy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Lots of naturally occurring variables are normally distributed. Heights of humans? Size of animal colonies?
answered 1 hour ago
HappyHappy
112
New contributor
Happy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 1 hour ago
HappyHappy
112
New contributor
Happy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 1 hour ago
HappyHappy
112
answered 1 hour ago
HappyHappy
112
112
New contributor
Happy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Happy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Happy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
$begingroup$
But are those examples really normally distributed, or is that just a useful approximation? True normally distributed random variables take negative values with positive probability.
$endgroup$
– Artem Mavrin
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Happy Actually neither example given here is normally distributed because the support of the normal distribution is -infinity to +infinity and the examples given can never be zero or less. In each case the normal distribution might be a useful approximation, but not if you were interested in the tails of the distribution.
$endgroup$
– JeremyC
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Human height is the result of the sum of (approximately) independent genes, so they actually are due to the CLT.
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
37 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@ArtemMavrin: getting a negative height would be something like 8+ standard deviations. If one objects to a normal approximation not being valid because it places zero probability mass beyond 8 sd's, you might as well also complain that a truly Normally distributed value is irrational with probability 1, yet all our measurements are rational numbers.
$endgroup$
– Cliff AB
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
@CliffAB that's a fair point, but I never said anything about it not being a valid approximation. In fact, I said that it's a useful approximation, but of course heights are not truly normally distributed
$endgroup$
– Artem Mavrin
27 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
2
$begingroup$
But are those examples really normally distributed, or is that just a useful approximation? True normally distributed random variables take negative values with positive probability.
$endgroup$
– Artem Mavrin
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Happy Actually neither example given here is normally distributed because the support of the normal distribution is -infinity to +infinity and the examples given can never be zero or less. In each case the normal distribution might be a useful approximation, but not if you were interested in the tails of the distribution.
$endgroup$
– JeremyC
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Human height is the result of the sum of (approximately) independent genes, so they actually are due to the CLT.
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
37 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@ArtemMavrin: getting a negative height would be something like 8+ standard deviations. If one objects to a normal approximation not being valid because it places zero probability mass beyond 8 sd's, you might as well also complain that a truly Normally distributed value is irrational with probability 1, yet all our measurements are rational numbers.
$endgroup$
– Cliff AB
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
@CliffAB that's a fair point, but I never said anything about it not being a valid approximation. In fact, I said that it's a useful approximation, but of course heights are not truly normally distributed
$endgroup$
– Artem Mavrin
27 mins ago
2
2
$begingroup$
But are those examples really normally distributed, or is that just a useful approximation? True normally distributed random variables take negative values with positive probability.
$endgroup$
– Artem Mavrin
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
But are those examples really normally distributed, or is that just a useful approximation? True normally distributed random variables take negative values with positive probability.
$endgroup$
– Artem Mavrin
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Happy Actually neither example given here is normally distributed because the support of the normal distribution is -infinity to +infinity and the examples given can never be zero or less. In each case the normal distribution might be a useful approximation, but not if you were interested in the tails of the distribution.
$endgroup$
– JeremyC
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Happy Actually neither example given here is normally distributed because the support of the normal distribution is -infinity to +infinity and the examples given can never be zero or less. In each case the normal distribution might be a useful approximation, but not if you were interested in the tails of the distribution.
$endgroup$
– JeremyC
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Human height is the result of the sum of (approximately) independent genes, so they actually are due to the CLT.
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
37 mins ago
$begingroup$
Human height is the result of the sum of (approximately) independent genes, so they actually are due to the CLT.
$endgroup$
– gardenhead
37 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@ArtemMavrin: getting a negative height would be something like 8+ standard deviations. If one objects to a normal approximation not being valid because it places zero probability mass beyond 8 sd's, you might as well also complain that a truly Normally distributed value is irrational with probability 1, yet all our measurements are rational numbers.
$endgroup$
– Cliff AB
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ArtemMavrin: getting a negative height would be something like 8+ standard deviations. If one objects to a normal approximation not being valid because it places zero probability mass beyond 8 sd's, you might as well also complain that a truly Normally distributed value is irrational with probability 1, yet all our measurements are rational numbers.
$endgroup$
– Cliff AB
31 mins ago
$begingroup$
@CliffAB that's a fair point, but I never said anything about it not being a valid approximation. In fact, I said that it's a useful approximation, but of course heights are not truly normally distributed
$endgroup$
– Artem Mavrin
27 mins ago
$begingroup$
@CliffAB that's a fair point, but I never said anything about it not being a valid approximation. In fact, I said that it's a useful approximation, but of course heights are not truly normally distributed
$endgroup$
– Artem Mavrin
27 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f401055%2fare-there-any-examples-of-a-variable-being-normally-distributed-that-is-not-du%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
The physical theory of diffusion, to the extent it is applicable to any system, predicts Normal distributions of quantities (like temperature or concentration) that originate at a point. Indeed, a great many systems are diffusive (options prices, particle transport in homogeneous media, etc.), suggesting that examples are abundant assuming one is not so naive as to suppose that a Normal distribution must hold exactly out to unrealistically large or small values--that would be a misunderstanding of all physical theory.
$endgroup$
– whuber♦
19 mins ago