Talk:Continuity correction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's darn useful that this article brought my attention to this issue, as I have a binomial implementation which appears to delegate to Poisson without the correction.

Aside from the lack of references, an expert might add a sentence or two motivating why the continuity correction is required. MaxEnt 20:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking into this a little deeper.

• http://cns2.uni.edu/~campbell/stat/prob9.html
• http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ContinuityCorrection.html

It's not that I don't find the geometric argument compelling, it's that I don't find it obvious that the 'corrected' function dominates the uncorrected function (ie. that the CC normal curve is better approx. to the binomial than un-CC normal for all integers x); nor is it obvious there is anything wrong with the implied binomial mass distribution for un-CC; is it not that CC dominates non-CC everywhere except finitely many exceptions? Is that the point of this? MaxEnt 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I thought it was obvious why the corrected version is better than the uncorrected normal. Maybe I'll add something explicit on this. But I don't understand what is meant by the following words:

nor is it obvious there is anything wrong with the implied binomial mass distribution for un-CC

What does that mean?? Michael Hardy 00:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)