Talk:Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, which collaborates to improve Wikipedia's coverage of statistics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
 |
|||||
| Mathematics rating: | Start Class | Importance unassessed. | Field: Probability and statistics | ||
| Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Please also add comments to suggest improvements to the article. | |||||
Is there a particular reason that the formula in the article is linked as an seperate image, rather than using Wikipedia's TeX markup? I noticed lots of experimenting on in the article history. -- DrBob 21:50 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
TeX insisted on putting r = in the numerator. That was probably my fault but having spent enough time on it I decided to put in an image till I could figure it out. The image is less than ideal, though, so I will be trying again to write the formula in TeX. Jfitzg
It's easy when you know how, eh? My TeX looked something like that, but obviously not enough. Thanks.Jfitzg
- I remember. I had \sum in the wrong place. I was tired. Really.
-
- It's also the curly braces {} that tell TeX how to do the grouping, rather than showing up in the text like normal braces (). They look rather too similar in some fonts, so it can be hard to spot the difference. See the Tex markup article for more examples. -- Anon.
-
-
- Thanks, anon. I finally got round to converting the others.
-
This article could benefit from a little example with some numbers and an actual calculation of r. AxelBoldt 22:26 22 May 2003 (UTC)
- Feel free.
[edit] Merge with Correlation
This topic is covered in Correlation. I move that we merge the two and have this page redirect to Correlation.
- I disagree, I think it is fine to cover the details of the specific method in a separate page, allowing the 'central' subject article to be clear for non technical people. However, the stuff about linear regression here should probably be removed. Any reason this page isn't listed under rank correlation coefficient? Hmmm... I guess it isn't a 'rank' method. --Dan|(talk) 08:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. I suggest moving much of the mathematical stuff pertaining to the correlation coefficient to be under "Pearson... ", and that it should be extended with results about the sampling distribution under the joint-normal case. This would leave the "Correlation" article to given a general description and to compare with other measures of dependence. Melcombe (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] in computer software
why have the, "in computer software" section, it doesn't appear in any other statistics aarticle that I'm aware of. Any opinions? Pdbailey (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
