Talk:Stochastic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mathematics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.
Mathematics rating:	B Class	Mid Priority	Field: Probability and statistics
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.
Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Click to show/hide comments. Please add to or update the comments to suggest improvements to the article. This article should probably be in several other WikiProjects too. Personally I'm not too keen on splitting it as all the fields use "stochastic" to mean essentially the same thing. It gets quite a lot of views but I'd conjecture that most people are after little more than a dictionary definition. It's interesting and probably of some use to see what fields use it and in what context and give some links. Perhaps that's really enough? Qwfp (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References needed

The only reference cited to Iannis Xenakis as beeing the pioneer in stochastic music generation is a book by himself and a link to his Wikipedia page. Unless a third-party reference can be cited, the information should be deleted, according to the Wikipedia Verifiability policy (Wikipedia:Verifiability) --Armando Serrano 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning

Stochastic means unknowable not random.

If say we have an asteroid, then it's movments in orbits, over a long period is stochastic. At a fundemental level we cannot measure the position of the asteroid well enough to make acurate long term predictions, however the asteroid was always going to go where it has gone, its movments are not random but stochastic.

The decay of an atomic nucleus is random according to modern physics.

I think this is correct at least in physics and maths.

--Jirate 19:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In mathematics it's usually taken to be synonymous with random. But the phrase random variable is used far more often than stochastic variable and stochastic process is used more often than random process. There is also the related question of whether probabilities should be assigned only to things that are random, according to their relative frequencies of occurrence, or to things that are uncertain according to how strongly the evidence supports them. This is central to the Bayesian-versus-frequentist controversy in statistical inference. Michael Hardy 21:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] either...?

>by either the previous state of the environment.

Shouldn't there be an "or" phrase to explain the "either"?

-I think it means "by either the previous state or the environment". If this is wrong, plrease revert-Akshayaj 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Color Reproduction and Stochastic screening

We like to call it "Sarcastic screaming"

Is this ok?

When color reproductions are made, the image is separaed into it's component colors (color separated through RGB filters). One represents the cyan, magenta, yellow, and black data. Color printing is a binary system, therefore all color films or plates, etc. eventually have to be translated into dots of some sort. Traditional linescreens (amplitude modulated) had been used up until stochastic screening became available. A stochastic (or frequency modulated) dot pattern creates a more photorealistic image. --Dkroll2 16:27, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

I dont know about the past, but currently, is this article a disambiguation page? Form a rough scan of it, it seems to be an encyclopedia article, and not a disabiguation. If I am wrong, by all means, please explain. Otherwise, I make a motion to remove the disambiguation label at teh bottom.--Vox Causa 15:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Second. This page is showing up at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, but it would not be possible to follow the normal procedure (see that page) by changing links to this page to link directly to the appropriate articles; it's not clear, from this page, what one would link to in each case. For an example of a page that *does* offer pages to link to when cleaning up such links (a page I happen to have adopted), see Swedish. --Tkynerd 01:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have proposed this page to be split. Read more under Proposed Split below. Hymyly^T@C 20:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stochastic roots

Stochastic word comes from ancient Greek word "stochasticos" [adjective], meaning to aim to achieve a goal, but also meaning "assumed", "supposed", "hypothetical". "Stochasticos" is used nowadays in Greek literature and technical books. The word "stochastikos" comes from "stochazomae" meaning to make assumtions-hypothesis, to think. The root word for all the words (stochastikos,stochazomae) is the word "stochos" which means "aim","goal".

It is used to give a property to a person or an object.

ex.'This algorithm uses stochastic procedure' meaning that the algorithm makes its own hypothesis; that the code is not determenistic.

[edit] Stochastic vs Non-deterministic

I think there is a difference between 'Stochastic' and 'Non-deterministic'. I read something about a 'Stochastic and Non-deterministic' calculus and a 'Stochastic and Deterministic' calculus. --hzmonte 27 January 2007

[edit] Proposed Split

I have proposed this page to be split. It is not structured like a proper encyclopaedic article, and there is enough to be said about each of the subtopics to form complete articles on them. My vision is that this be turned into a redirect to Stochastic process or similar. Please leave your comments. Hymyly^T@C 20:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be split up. This article may become a disambiguation page rather than a redirect, eg. stochastic event, stochastic process, etc. But yes, articles should be about nouns, not adjectives. And splitting the article makes sense regardless. —Pengo 22:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Does someone just split the page up themselves or do people just leave it for Admins to take care of? --Huper Phuff ^talk 21:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the split. (Which is something users does by themselves, rather than admins.) —Quasirandom 18:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I disagree for now but think it's eventually a good idea? Right now, it's really great to have all the topics together, and because they are pretty much just a blurb, it's readable and concise. Yet, each section doesn't seem to merit a page on their own--yet technically they should be their own page. But Wikipedia, I've noticed, doesn't operate on technicalities, it operates on what the wikipedia people think, according to the wikipedia principles of course. So, according to this, I'd use the notability thing which says that the article should be notable. Right now, it seems like the sections aren't notable enough to merit their own section (no section has more than 5 sentances); if the sections become more notable, then I say split it up! Rhetth (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

--EDIT--

Stochastic. I'm not sure how the splits are formed, but I am thinking that one can talk about Stochastic philosophy, stochastics in psychology (e.g. stochastic optimal feedback control model) and in mathematics.

Split, folks, split. The sooner the better. Having small sections in a big article discourages section improvement. The new articles can be stubs, but my guess is, they probably will not remain stubs long. As far as having it all together is concerned, that is what the disambig aspect is for. Instead of having a disambig however I would suggest judicious use of "main" and "details". That way it is easy for anyone just to start a stub containing the bulk of the section and reduce the section in this article to a one- or two-liner introduced by a "main."Dave (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

2 more cents from me: As the article topics get made into seperate main articles, should this page even exist? I think so, because no one article should give the full breadth and explaination of the general idea of what is stochastic. Stochastic has been used to refer to many different ideas, and this article should be the melting pot for them all, vs. each single stochastic article representing its perspective.

[edit] stochastic events in biology

there should be something mentioned about stochastic events in developmental biology. this is about the random chances or unseen factors that affect the phenotype of organisms with the same genotype in the same environment....130.102.42.97 00:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Examples

I don't think the classic examples given for stochastic processes do a good job of illustrating what a stochastic process is. At least, I don't think the connection is explained well. The way it's written, stochastic processes are all about the unpredictability of success given a certain input. Worse, one might come away thinking a stochastic process is defined as one in which one does not obtain optimal benefit.

Rather in doctoring, it might better be stated that not all patients with equivalent symptoms will necessarily react the same way to a given treatment, or in war, that a given strategy countered against another will not always result in the same level of success, neither can outcomes be certainly predicted by the relative strengths of the armies involved.

I'm going to make some changes along these lines.--Seanmcox (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the given examples totally suck. Following their (absurd) form, I could just as well say that adding two numbers is a stochastic process, because knowing their signs is not sufficient to determine their sum. That is, applying the same addition-treatment to several number-patients exhibiting the same sign-symptoms doesn't mean their sum-reactions will be the same. Further, the examples cite a philosophical paper. While this source helps to make clear the etymology of the term, it has no practical bearing, whatsoever, on the conceptual formulation of this inherently mathematical idea. So, yeah, get rid of it; SECONDED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.135.40 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... some interesting ideas. But, 65.183.135.40, it doesn't look good to start a discussion with 'absurd' and 'totally suck' & not even sign in. Someone might think you just like to talk but not follow up on your statements. As far as the number-crunching counter-example goes, you are right. So far, only first order arithmetic has been found to be consistent and complete. For addition, a guy named Goedel came up with some hair-brained idea that it, along with other basic arithmetical truths, are founded on logic which proves itself true, which of course makes it inconsistent.

As far as the source goes, it gives a definition of non-mathematical stochastic processes, so why do you say that stochastic things are inherently mathematical? "Stochastic crafts are those, like rhetoric and medicine, in which the achievement of the stated aim of the craft can and must be distinguished from the question whether the craft is being practiced perfectly." I can get you a full copy of the paper if you like.

As far as the examples given, and the new wording, I would say they are technically correct, but perhaps we could include examples for the mathematical stochastic processes and for non-mathematical stochastic processes ("stochastic crafts" per the source)? I think that would give both ideas more dignity and clairity. Also, the rewording of the medical example ("a doctor can administer the same treatment to multiple patients suffering from the same symptoms, however, the patients may not all react to the treatment the same way. This makes medicine a stochastic process") is technically correct, but as the source talks about the perfect doctoring ("So even if the doctor's patient dies, he may have practiced his craft [perfectly]...") it seems to be talking about the practice of the craft, not the performance of the pill. The medicine itself (the pill, knowledge) can be treated like a function or an algorithm, but the practice of medicine cannot. Even if the doctor does everything 'correct' during treatment, she may still fail to cure the patient. So I think the example for medicine should include something referring to the process of determining a treatment vs. the treatment itself. Rhetth (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)