Talk:Random variate

Statistics Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Mathematics Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Untitled[edit]

moved to talk page Rich Farmbrough 12:53 23 April 2006 (UTC).

Difference with "Random variable"?[edit]

Which is the difference between a "random variable" and a "random variate"? Should these articles be merged? Or at least, should the content of this article be made more "aware" of the other one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blaisorblade (talk • contribs) 11:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Definition[edit]

The definition is wrong! Random variate is the same as random variable, and could have any distribution, not only uniform. Olaf m (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong usage[edit]

Variate isn't the same as random variate. This article needs referencing. 86.130.140.210 (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new definition differs from my original edit(2006) and Wolfram's[edit]

See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RandomVariate.html that in turn references Neelamkavil/1987.

Perhaps they need merging? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blair Sutton (talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Random variate into Realization (statistics)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to merge. @Fgnievinsky and Mark viking: Pinging participants to implement the merger.

closely related concepts fgnievinski (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merger would be OK, as long as the distinction between the topics is clarified. My understanding is that a random variable is described by a probability distribution/measure, a realization is a procedure or model for producing a sample with that distribution, and a random variate is an outcome of a realization. For example, a Poisson distribution, a radioactive sample and Geiger counter, and an observed timing of clicks. A distribution may have many possible realizations and a realization may have many possible random variates. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 12:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: that's not what the article states: "a realization, observation, or observed value, of a random variable is the value that is actually observed (what actually happened)." I.e., realization = variate:

"A random variate is a realization, or instantiation of a random variable, which is typically generated by a computer." [1]
"A random variate is a realization of a random variable." [2]

fgnievinski (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, "we must distinguish between our random variable X — a procedure — and a realization — application of the procedure to a particular instance to yield an outcome in our sample space. The outcome of a realization, also often referred to as simply the realization, is denoted a random variate;" [3] But agreed, it is also true that some sources do not differentiate between realization and random variate. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 06:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: Agreed there's a nuance between the process and the result; but I still think it'd be better to cover both in the same article. fgnievinski (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.