Poisson approximation to the normal

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the Poisson approximation to the normal distribution, particularly its validity for lambda values above 10, ideally above 32, as supported by the central limit theorem (CLT). Participants express interest in a step-by-step proof of this approximation, which is not readily available in their resources. The Berry-Esseen theorem is mentioned as a related concept that provides bounds on the difference between the cumulative distribution functions of sample means and the normal distribution. A method is suggested for applying this theorem by representing a high-frequency Poisson process as a sum of low-frequency independent identically distributed Poissons. Overall, the conversation highlights the connection between Poisson distributions and normal approximations through established statistical theorems.
rhyno89
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
So my book merely mentions that this holds as a result of the central limit theorem for values of lambda greater than 10, but ideally greater than 32.

Anyway I was wondering if anyone knew this actual proof as I am interested in seeing it step by step and I could not have found it anywhere that I have looked.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can't give you an off hand answer, but it is essentially based on the central limit theorem. Similar result holds for binomial distribution.
 
Last edited:
The Berry-Esseen theorem is similar to CLT but gives a bound on the difference between the CDF of a sample mean and the normal CDF, in terms of n and the third moment.

To use this theorem here, for example, write a high-frequency Poisson as a sum of low-frequency iid Poissons (e.g. \lambda=n.f where f is a value between 0.9 and 1) and then find the value of n that gives the required accuracy.
 
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top