Calculating Ratios of Moments: Spatial Extent of Distribution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jacob
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Moments Ratios
Jacob
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I've been told that there are useful interpretations of the ratios of moments of probability density distributions, such as <x^4>/<x^2>. I only have un-normalised values of the second and higher moments of the distribution of interest. Is there any way of quantifying the spatial extent of the distribution?

Thanks for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have limited knowledge of this, but since no one else is answering, I will offer what I have. Incase you don't already know, the first moment is the expectation, which can be interpreted as a sort of center of mass. The second central (about the mean/expectation) moment is the variance, which is analogous to the moment of inertia in physics. The variance is the square of the standard deviation, and is a measure of how "spread out" the distribution is.
The only other one i know of is the skew factor, which is the third central moment, divided by the second central moment (the variance) to the power of 3/2. (here only the denominator is raised to the power, not the third central moment). This is a measure of how symmetrical the distribuition is. Sorry that I can't help more.
 
Thanks for the help.

Unfortunately I only know unnormalised second and fourth moments of the distributions (which is why I need to divide the two!).

I have two similar distributions which I would like to compare on the basis of the unnormalised second and fourth moments.
 
Well, one of the measures of kurtosis in that Mathworld link does use the unnormalized 4th and 2nd moments, so that should do the job.
 
anyone can explain to me what is functionally complete gates ?
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top