Re: [R] [OT] "normal" (as in "Guassian")

From: Patrick Burns <pburns_at_pburns.seanet.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:13:10 +0000

Douglas Bates wrote:

>On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch@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?
>
>

No. If Stigler's Law were named after some prior person, then it wouldn't be an example of itself.

Pat

>
>
>> > 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.
>
>
>
>



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. Received on Mon 03 Mar 2008 - 19:25:26 GMT

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Mon 03 Mar 2008 - 22:30:19 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help. Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive