Wouldn't you agree that maybe the word 'normal' has something to do with the concept of 'average' as it follows from a given CLT applying to partial sums, S_n, of a given sequence having identical means, mu, and variances, sig^2, that for finite n, a we have the following weak approximation: S_n/n is approximately, in Distribution, equal to N( mu, sig^2/ n) and by the LIL, the approximation is, for large n, with probability 1, accurate to +/- (2 sig^2 log(log(n)))^0.5/n^0.5
--- John Fox <jfox at mcmaster.ca> wrote:
Dear Doug, As I recall, according to Stigler, yes -- he wasn't the first to formulate Stigler's law of eponymy (but I don't recall to whom he attributed it).
Possibly a disgruntles M. de Moivre?
Regards, John On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:17:59 -0600 "Douglas Bates" <bates at stat.wisc.edu> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Duncan Murdoch
<murdoch at stats.uwo.ca>
wrote:
On 3/3/2008 9:10 AM, Rogers, James A [PGRD
Groton] wrote:
> As someone of partly French heritage, I would
also ask how this
> distribution came to be called "Gaussian". It
seems very unfair
to de
> Moivre, who discovered the distribution at
least half a century
earlier.
> :-)
Just an example of Stigler's Law.
Taking this to a whole new level of "off topic", I
wonder if
Stigler's Law is self-referential? That is, should
Stigler's Law more
correctly be attributed to someone else?
> On Mar 2, 2008, at 7:33 AM, (Ted Harding)
wrote:
>
>> Hi Folks, >> Apologies to anyone who'd prefer not to see
this query
>> on this list; but I'm asking because it is
probably the
>> forum where I'm most likely to get a good
answer!
>> >> I'm interested in the provenance of the name
"normal
>> distribution" (for what I'd really prefer to
call the
>> "Gaussian" distribution). >> >> According to Wikipedia, "The name "normal
distribution"
>> was coined independently by Charles S.
Peirce, Francis
>> Galton and Wilhelm Lexis around 1875." >> >> So be it, if that was the case -- but I
would like to
>> know why they chose the name "normal": what
did they
>> intend to convey? >> >> As background: I'm reflecting a bit on the
usage in
>> statistics of "everyday language" as
techincal terms,
>> as in "significantly different". This, for
instance,
>> is likely to be misunderstood by the general
publidc
>> when they encounter statements in the media. >> >> Likewise, "normally distributed" would
probably be
>> interpreted as "distributed in the way one
would
>> normally expect" or, perhaps, "there was
nothing
>> unusual about the distribution." >> >> Comments welcome! >> With thanks, >> Ted. >>
> >
______________________________________________ > R-help at r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. ______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. ______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. -------------------------------- John Fox, Professor Department of Sociology McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox/ ______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.