Is real analysis necessary for success in statistics?

AI Thread Summary
Real analysis plays a variable role in learning statistics, depending on the specific area of focus within the field. For many applied statistics roles, a deep understanding of real analysis is not essential, especially if one is primarily using established methods without delving into theoretical foundations. However, for theoretical work, particularly in stochastic calculus and systems involving infinite random variables, real analysis and measure theory become crucial. Those interested in experimental design or computational analysis may find that real analysis is less critical. It's important to understand the assumptions behind statistical methods, as this knowledge can guide the choice of appropriate techniques. While some programs may emphasize real analysis as a gatekeeping measure, many statisticians successfully work without extensive knowledge in this area. Ultimately, the decision to continue in statistics should consider personal interests and the specific demands of the chosen career path.
Stat313
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hello there,

Is real analysis really important in the process of learning statistics?

The reason is, I suck at real analysis(actually, I failed it) and do really good at stats(I am in my third yr. at uni.).

Should I continue studying stats or switch to another major?

I am looking for some advice, please.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Stat313 said:
Hello there,

Is real analysis really important in the process of learning statistics?

The reason is, I suck at real analysis(actually, I failed it) and do really good at stats(I am in my third yr. at uni.).

Should I continue studying stats or switch to another major?

I am looking for some advice, please.

Hey Stat313 and welcome to the forums.

For your question my answer is yes and no depending on what kind of statistics/probability you are doing.

For many purposes I would say that it is not absolutely essential to have a solid understanding in real analysis.

It depends on what kind of work you're doing and what kind of problems you are working on. If you are dealing with say the theoretical side of stochastic calculus and you have to understand for example when a particular stochastic process makes sense or how to deal with it, then yes real analysis is absolutely vital.

Also in terms of stochastic processes in general, if you want to rigorously work with something that is well defined you have to resort to using measure theory of which the measure you are using is probabilistic in nature (I think they call them Borel measures if I remember correctly) and this means you go through the whole measure theory blah blah blah to analyze it in this context.

Now if you primarily want to use others results that are derived from theoretical statisticians or pure mathematicians but still have to do something analytic where you are actually doing the 'statistical' work without worrying about the theoretical foundations (i.e. you let the theoretical guys check it out) then this should be ok and in fact many statisticians are, in my guess, actually doing this anyway.

The reason I say this is, is because the same kind of thing happens in engineering and even in applied mathematics in some contexts. Basically as long as the methods are sound and as long as you understand the assumptions and what they really mean (very important point here), then there is no reason why you need to prove everything every time or even know the nuances. But what it does mean is that if you can't use a particular method because of assumptional circumstances and you need to use another method, then you will need to make sure that is sound either by proving it yourself or getting someone else to do it.

Again it depends on what kind of systems you are working on. If you are dealing with systems of infinite random variables, you definitely will need to know real analysis and probably functional analysis as well.

If you are more concerned with things involving designing and analyzing experiments or doing computational analysis where the procedures are proven to work and the assumptions clearly understood, then I don't think real analysis is going to be required.

Personally I think you'll be able to find lots of work where you don't need a lot of real analysis and where you can still do some deep statistical work.

Just be aware of the kinds of things that will require a deep knowledge of real analysis: these kinds of things include stochastic calculus where you have a system that has not been strictly dealt with and it's properties investigated and proofs formed but where you still need to know things like say if the process is continuous, if it converges and also things to do with calculus like integration.
 
I would talk to other people in math at your school. In a lot of places (but not all), analysis is kind of like a hoop to jump through so they can weed out weaker students. It's not necessarily linked to other courses you will take. But it's going to depend a lot on what your program is like. In the program I took, some concepts from analysis came up again but analysis-style thinking didn't really come back.
 
In general? No. Not for most applied purposes.
Keep in mind that rigorous probability theory requires measure theory, which will require you to pick up some real analysis. The frontiers of statistics nowadays use everything from functional analysis to differential and algebraic geometry.
 
I'm going to make this one quick since I have little time. Background: Throughout my life I have always done good in Math. I almost always received 90%+, and received easily upwards of 95% when I took normal-level HS Math courses. When I took Grade 9 "De-Streamed" Math (All students must take "De-Streamed" in Canada), I initially had 98% until I got very sick and my mark had dropped to 95%. The Physics teachers and Math teachers talked about me as if I were some sort of genius. Then, an...
Bit Britain-specific but I was wondering, what's the best path to take for A-Levels out of the following (I know Y10 seems a bit early to be thinking about A-levels, but my choice will impact what I do this year/ in y11) I (almost) definitely want to do physics at University - so keep that in mind... The subjects that I'm almost definitely going to take are Maths, Further Maths and Physics, and I'm taking a fast track programme which means that I'll be taking AS computer science at the end...
After a year of thought, I decided to adjust my ratio for applying the US/EU(+UK) schools. I mostly focused on the US schools before, but things are getting complex and I found out that Europe is also a good place to study. I found some institutes that have professors with similar interests. But gaining the information is much harder than US schools (like you have to contact professors in advance etc). For your information, I have B.S. in engineering (low GPA: 3.2/4.0) in Asia - one SCI...
Back
Top