31–40 of 67 posts
The definition under "A Brief Recap" seems incorrect. The sample size doesn't approach infinity, the number of samples does. I'm in a similar situation to the author, I skipped stats, so I could be wrong. Overall great article though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe OP just used an ai editor to add their silly comments, so that would be fair game I guess? Or some humans just add silly comments. The article didn't stand out to me as emberrassingly ai-written. Not an em dash in sight :) Edit: just found this disclaimer in the article: > I’ll show the generating R code, with a liberal sprinking of comments so it’s hopefully not too inscrutable. Doesn't come out the gate and s…
Op here, no AI generated code, I'm wondering what gives the impression that it is? I use Rmarkdown, so the code that's presented is also the same code that 'generates' the data/tables/graphs (source: https://github.com/gregfoletta/articles.foletta.org/blob/pro... ).
Highly entertaining, here a little fun fact: there exist a generalisation of the central limit theorem for distributions without find out variance. For some reasons this is much less known, also the implications are vast. Via the detour of stable distributions and limiting distributions, this generalised central limit theorem plays an important role in the rise of power laws in physics.
Otherwise, they might end up underestimating rare events, with potentially catastrophic consequences. There are also CLTs for product and max operators, aside from the sum.
The Fundamentals of Heavy Tails: Properties, Emergence, and Estimation discusses these topics in a rigorous way, but without excessive mathematics. See: https://adamwierman.com/book
There are methods to calculate how many estimated samples you need. It’s not in the 20k unless your population is extremely high
Speaking of CLTs, is there a good book or reference paper that discusses various CLTs (not just the basic IID one) in a somewhat introductory manner?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A "pipe" is simply a composition of functions. Tidyverse adds a different syntax for doing function composition, using the pipe operator, which I don't particularly like. My general objection to Tidyverse is that it tries to reinvent everything but the end result is a language that is less practical and less transparent than standard R.
Can you rewrite some of those snippets in standard R w/o Tidyverse? Curious what it would look like
population_data Earlier quoted context omitted.
The threshold should be exactly the same as when using another human's original text (or code) in your article. AI cannot have copyright, but for full disclosure one should act as if they did. Anything that's merely something that a human editor (or code reviewer) would do is fair game IMO.
Agree here - in a nutshell it strikes me as intellectually dishonest to intentionally pass off some other entity's work as one's own.
the only exception being contexts that explicitly prohibit it.
Edit: OP confirms there's no AI-generated code, so do ignore me. The code style - and in particular the *comments - indicate most of the code was written by AI. My apologies if you are not trying to hide this fact, but it seems like common decency to label that you're heavily using AI? *Comments like this: "# Anonymous function"
“ You’re also likely not going to have the resources to take twenty-thousand different samples.” There are methods to calculate how many estimated samples you need. It’s not in the 20k unless your population is extremely high
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry%E2%80%93Esseen_theorem