I was wondering if the Stats.SE community would know of a more compact way of writing $$(X_1, X_2, \dots, X_n) \sim F$$ since I use it so often, but there's nothing inherently difficult about the question that would require statistical knowledge.
For that reason, I'm unsure whether it is considered relevant here. Are questions regarding "good notation" fair game for Stats.SE?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
-
$\begingroup$ Are you simply asking about $\LaTeX$ shortcuts? If so, this question may help: latex-macros-for-expectation-variance-and-covariance, also there is an SE site for $\TeX$. $\endgroup$gung - Reinstate Monicaβ gung - Reinstate Monica10/28/2012 02:26:18Commented Oct 28, 2012 at 2:26
-
1$\begingroup$ I meant in general, like writing. I want to know about a concise way of writing it. $\endgroup$Christopher Adenβ Christopher Aden10/28/2012 02:47:36Commented Oct 28, 2012 at 2:47
-
$\begingroup$ What would it mean to have a "concise way of writing it", fewer characters in the line? There are conventions w/i matrix algebra for writing things like $(X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_n)$, but I would guess you know them already. $\endgroup$gung - Reinstate Monicaβ gung - Reinstate Monica10/28/2012 02:53:15Commented Oct 28, 2012 at 2:53
-
$\begingroup$ Yes, I do mean writing fewer characters in the line, but still retaining the clarity. I'm hesitant to use $\mathbf{X_n} \sim^{iid} F$, as it might be interpreted as a multivariate distribution on the vector. $\endgroup$Christopher Adenβ Christopher Aden10/28/2012 03:44:09Commented Oct 28, 2012 at 3:44
-
5$\begingroup$ The expression in the question is already ambiguous: literally, it says the vector $(X_i)$ has the multivariate distribution $F$. If you mean that you have a set of iid variables, it would be more correct and less ambiguous to write something like $\left\{ X_i \right\}\stackrel{iid}{\sim}F$. But in general, it's clearer to state what you mean (in English) the first time: then more readers are likely to understand your words correctly. $\endgroup$whuberβ whuber Mod10/28/2012 15:57:17Commented Oct 28, 2012 at 15:57
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
I think they should be on-topic here. Notation can greatly assist clarity (or, in some cases, retard it). One good bit of advice I got on reading about models is to follow the subscripts. But that, of course, necessitates that the subscripts are correctly written in the first place.
As an aside, the professor who taught ANOVA to me (and many others) was not aided in his exposition by the fact that, on the board, his i's and j's (and sometimes his k's) all looked identical.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
They seem to be on topic, as attested by 17 questions already bearing the notation tag.
-
1$\begingroup$ To clarify, you mean that they seem to be on-topic? $\endgroup$russellpierceβ russellpierce01/20/2013 15:59:33Commented Jan 20, 2013 at 15:59