Independence of Mean and Variance of Discrete Uniform DistributionsRelationship between mean and variance of samplesKurtosis/4th central moment in terms of mean and varianceFinding the Mean and Variance from PDF2 discrete distributions with equal mean and varianceanalysis of variance - independence of samples and independence of individualsIndependence of sample mean and sample variance in binomial distributionIndividual Bernoulli distributions from Discrete UniformMean and Variance of Continuous Random Variable

Does the Temple of the Gods spell nullify critical hits?

What causes burn marks on the air handler in the attic?

How can I train a replacement without them knowing?

Is "stainless" a bulk or a surface property of stainless steel?

Unbiased estimator of exponential of measure of a set?

How to detect a failed AES256 decryption programmatically?

Check disk usage of files returned with spaces

What Linux Kernel runs Ubuntu 18.04.3 LTS

Polar contour plot in Mathematica?

Why do aircraft leave cruising altitude long before landing just to circle?

Are there any OR challenges that are similar to kaggle's competitions?

Installing the original OS X version onto a Mac?

Radix2 Fast Fourier Transform implemented in C++

What can I do to keep a threaded bolt from falling out of it’s slot

Levenshtein Neighbours

Why don't politicians push for fossil fuel reduction by pointing out their scarcity?

Is there a commercial liquid with refractive index greater than n=2?

Output with the same length always

!I!n!s!e!r!t! !b!e!t!w!e!e!n!

Sinc interpolation in spatial domain

Can 'in-' mean both 'in' and 'no'?

Is recepted a word?

Is there a way to make the "o" keypress of other-window <C-x><C-o> repeatable?

Indirect speech - breaking the rules of it



Independence of Mean and Variance of Discrete Uniform Distributions


Relationship between mean and variance of samplesKurtosis/4th central moment in terms of mean and varianceFinding the Mean and Variance from PDF2 discrete distributions with equal mean and varianceanalysis of variance - independence of samples and independence of individualsIndependence of sample mean and sample variance in binomial distributionIndividual Bernoulli distributions from Discrete UniformMean and Variance of Continuous Random Variable






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








4












$begingroup$


In the comments below a post of mine, Glen_b and I were discussing how discrete distributions necessarily have dependent mean and variance.



For a normal distribution it makes sense. If I tell you $barx$, you haven't a clue what $s^2$ is, and if I tell you $s^2$, you haven't a clue what $barx$ is. (Edited to address the sample statistics, not the population parameters.)



But then for a discrete uniform distribution, doesn't the same logic apply? If I estimate the center of the endpoints, I don't know the scale, and if I estimate the scale, I don't know the center.



What's going wrong with my thinking?



EDIT



I did jbowman's simulation. Then I hit it with the probability integral transform (I think) to examine the relationship without any influence from the marginal distributions (isolation of the copula).



Data.mean <- Data.var <- rep(NA,20000)
for (i in 1:20000)
Data <- sample(seq(1,10,1),100,replace=T)
Data.mean[i] <- mean(Data)
Data.var[i] <- var(Data)

par(mfrow=c(2,1))
plot(Data.mean,Data.var,main="Observations")
plot(ecdf(Data.mean)(Data.mean),ecdf(Data.var)(Data.var),main="'Copula'")


enter image description here



In the little image that appears in RStudio, the second plot looks like it has uniform coverage over the unit square, so independence. Upon zooming in, there are distinct vertical bands. I think this has to do with the discreteness and that I shouldn't read into it. I then tried it for a continuous uniform distribution on $(0,10)$.



Data.mean <- Data.var <- rep(NA,20000)
for (i in 1:20000)

Data <- runif(100,0,10)
Data.mean[i] <- mean(Data)
Data.var[i] <- var(Data)


par(mfrow=c(2,1))
plot(Data.mean,Data.var)
plot(ecdf(Data.mean)(Data.mean),ecdf(Data.var)(Data.var))


enter image description here



This one really does look like it has points distributed uniformly across the unit square, so I remain skeptical that $barx$ and $s^2$ are independent.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    That's an interesting approach you've taken there, I'll have to think about it.
    $endgroup$
    – jbowman
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The dependence (necessarily) gets weaker at larger sample sizes so it's hard to see. Try smaller sample sizes, like n=5,6,7 and you'll see it more easily.
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    2 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Glen_b You're right. There's a more obvious relationship when I shrink down the sample size. Even in the image I posted, there appears to be some clustering in the lower right and left corners, which is present in the plot for the smaller sample size. Two follow-ups. 1) Is the dependence necessarily getting weaker because the population parameters can be varied independent of each other? 2) It seems wrong that the statistics would have any kind of dependence, but they clearly do. What causes this?
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    One way to get some insight is to examine the special features of the samples that get into those 'horns" at the top of Bruce's plots. In particular note that at n=5, you get the largest possible variance by all the points being close to 0 or 1, but because there's 5 observations, you need 3 at one end and 2 at the other, so the mean must be near to 0.4 or 0.6 but not near 0.5 (since putting one point in the middle will drop the variance a bit). If you had a heavy tailed distribution, both mean and variance would be most impacted by the most extreme observation ... ctd
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    2 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    ctd... and in that situation you get a strong correlation between $|barx-mu|$ and $s$ (giving two big "horns" either side of the population center on a plot of sd vs mean) -- with the uniform this correlation is somewhat negative. ... With large samples you'll head toward the asymptotic behavior of $(barX,s^2_X)$ which ends up being jointly normal.
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    2 hours ago


















4












$begingroup$


In the comments below a post of mine, Glen_b and I were discussing how discrete distributions necessarily have dependent mean and variance.



For a normal distribution it makes sense. If I tell you $barx$, you haven't a clue what $s^2$ is, and if I tell you $s^2$, you haven't a clue what $barx$ is. (Edited to address the sample statistics, not the population parameters.)



But then for a discrete uniform distribution, doesn't the same logic apply? If I estimate the center of the endpoints, I don't know the scale, and if I estimate the scale, I don't know the center.



What's going wrong with my thinking?



EDIT



I did jbowman's simulation. Then I hit it with the probability integral transform (I think) to examine the relationship without any influence from the marginal distributions (isolation of the copula).



Data.mean <- Data.var <- rep(NA,20000)
for (i in 1:20000)
Data <- sample(seq(1,10,1),100,replace=T)
Data.mean[i] <- mean(Data)
Data.var[i] <- var(Data)

par(mfrow=c(2,1))
plot(Data.mean,Data.var,main="Observations")
plot(ecdf(Data.mean)(Data.mean),ecdf(Data.var)(Data.var),main="'Copula'")


enter image description here



In the little image that appears in RStudio, the second plot looks like it has uniform coverage over the unit square, so independence. Upon zooming in, there are distinct vertical bands. I think this has to do with the discreteness and that I shouldn't read into it. I then tried it for a continuous uniform distribution on $(0,10)$.



Data.mean <- Data.var <- rep(NA,20000)
for (i in 1:20000)

Data <- runif(100,0,10)
Data.mean[i] <- mean(Data)
Data.var[i] <- var(Data)


par(mfrow=c(2,1))
plot(Data.mean,Data.var)
plot(ecdf(Data.mean)(Data.mean),ecdf(Data.var)(Data.var))


enter image description here



This one really does look like it has points distributed uniformly across the unit square, so I remain skeptical that $barx$ and $s^2$ are independent.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    That's an interesting approach you've taken there, I'll have to think about it.
    $endgroup$
    – jbowman
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The dependence (necessarily) gets weaker at larger sample sizes so it's hard to see. Try smaller sample sizes, like n=5,6,7 and you'll see it more easily.
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    2 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Glen_b You're right. There's a more obvious relationship when I shrink down the sample size. Even in the image I posted, there appears to be some clustering in the lower right and left corners, which is present in the plot for the smaller sample size. Two follow-ups. 1) Is the dependence necessarily getting weaker because the population parameters can be varied independent of each other? 2) It seems wrong that the statistics would have any kind of dependence, but they clearly do. What causes this?
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    One way to get some insight is to examine the special features of the samples that get into those 'horns" at the top of Bruce's plots. In particular note that at n=5, you get the largest possible variance by all the points being close to 0 or 1, but because there's 5 observations, you need 3 at one end and 2 at the other, so the mean must be near to 0.4 or 0.6 but not near 0.5 (since putting one point in the middle will drop the variance a bit). If you had a heavy tailed distribution, both mean and variance would be most impacted by the most extreme observation ... ctd
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    2 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    ctd... and in that situation you get a strong correlation between $|barx-mu|$ and $s$ (giving two big "horns" either side of the population center on a plot of sd vs mean) -- with the uniform this correlation is somewhat negative. ... With large samples you'll head toward the asymptotic behavior of $(barX,s^2_X)$ which ends up being jointly normal.
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    2 hours ago














4












4








4





$begingroup$


In the comments below a post of mine, Glen_b and I were discussing how discrete distributions necessarily have dependent mean and variance.



For a normal distribution it makes sense. If I tell you $barx$, you haven't a clue what $s^2$ is, and if I tell you $s^2$, you haven't a clue what $barx$ is. (Edited to address the sample statistics, not the population parameters.)



But then for a discrete uniform distribution, doesn't the same logic apply? If I estimate the center of the endpoints, I don't know the scale, and if I estimate the scale, I don't know the center.



What's going wrong with my thinking?



EDIT



I did jbowman's simulation. Then I hit it with the probability integral transform (I think) to examine the relationship without any influence from the marginal distributions (isolation of the copula).



Data.mean <- Data.var <- rep(NA,20000)
for (i in 1:20000)
Data <- sample(seq(1,10,1),100,replace=T)
Data.mean[i] <- mean(Data)
Data.var[i] <- var(Data)

par(mfrow=c(2,1))
plot(Data.mean,Data.var,main="Observations")
plot(ecdf(Data.mean)(Data.mean),ecdf(Data.var)(Data.var),main="'Copula'")


enter image description here



In the little image that appears in RStudio, the second plot looks like it has uniform coverage over the unit square, so independence. Upon zooming in, there are distinct vertical bands. I think this has to do with the discreteness and that I shouldn't read into it. I then tried it for a continuous uniform distribution on $(0,10)$.



Data.mean <- Data.var <- rep(NA,20000)
for (i in 1:20000)

Data <- runif(100,0,10)
Data.mean[i] <- mean(Data)
Data.var[i] <- var(Data)


par(mfrow=c(2,1))
plot(Data.mean,Data.var)
plot(ecdf(Data.mean)(Data.mean),ecdf(Data.var)(Data.var))


enter image description here



This one really does look like it has points distributed uniformly across the unit square, so I remain skeptical that $barx$ and $s^2$ are independent.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




In the comments below a post of mine, Glen_b and I were discussing how discrete distributions necessarily have dependent mean and variance.



For a normal distribution it makes sense. If I tell you $barx$, you haven't a clue what $s^2$ is, and if I tell you $s^2$, you haven't a clue what $barx$ is. (Edited to address the sample statistics, not the population parameters.)



But then for a discrete uniform distribution, doesn't the same logic apply? If I estimate the center of the endpoints, I don't know the scale, and if I estimate the scale, I don't know the center.



What's going wrong with my thinking?



EDIT



I did jbowman's simulation. Then I hit it with the probability integral transform (I think) to examine the relationship without any influence from the marginal distributions (isolation of the copula).



Data.mean <- Data.var <- rep(NA,20000)
for (i in 1:20000)
Data <- sample(seq(1,10,1),100,replace=T)
Data.mean[i] <- mean(Data)
Data.var[i] <- var(Data)

par(mfrow=c(2,1))
plot(Data.mean,Data.var,main="Observations")
plot(ecdf(Data.mean)(Data.mean),ecdf(Data.var)(Data.var),main="'Copula'")


enter image description here



In the little image that appears in RStudio, the second plot looks like it has uniform coverage over the unit square, so independence. Upon zooming in, there are distinct vertical bands. I think this has to do with the discreteness and that I shouldn't read into it. I then tried it for a continuous uniform distribution on $(0,10)$.



Data.mean <- Data.var <- rep(NA,20000)
for (i in 1:20000)

Data <- runif(100,0,10)
Data.mean[i] <- mean(Data)
Data.var[i] <- var(Data)


par(mfrow=c(2,1))
plot(Data.mean,Data.var)
plot(ecdf(Data.mean)(Data.mean),ecdf(Data.var)(Data.var))


enter image description here



This one really does look like it has points distributed uniformly across the unit square, so I remain skeptical that $barx$ and $s^2$ are independent.







distributions variance mean independence moments






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 10 hours ago







Dave

















asked 11 hours ago









DaveDave

1,25912 bronze badges




1,25912 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    That's an interesting approach you've taken there, I'll have to think about it.
    $endgroup$
    – jbowman
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The dependence (necessarily) gets weaker at larger sample sizes so it's hard to see. Try smaller sample sizes, like n=5,6,7 and you'll see it more easily.
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    2 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Glen_b You're right. There's a more obvious relationship when I shrink down the sample size. Even in the image I posted, there appears to be some clustering in the lower right and left corners, which is present in the plot for the smaller sample size. Two follow-ups. 1) Is the dependence necessarily getting weaker because the population parameters can be varied independent of each other? 2) It seems wrong that the statistics would have any kind of dependence, but they clearly do. What causes this?
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    One way to get some insight is to examine the special features of the samples that get into those 'horns" at the top of Bruce's plots. In particular note that at n=5, you get the largest possible variance by all the points being close to 0 or 1, but because there's 5 observations, you need 3 at one end and 2 at the other, so the mean must be near to 0.4 or 0.6 but not near 0.5 (since putting one point in the middle will drop the variance a bit). If you had a heavy tailed distribution, both mean and variance would be most impacted by the most extreme observation ... ctd
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    2 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    ctd... and in that situation you get a strong correlation between $|barx-mu|$ and $s$ (giving two big "horns" either side of the population center on a plot of sd vs mean) -- with the uniform this correlation is somewhat negative. ... With large samples you'll head toward the asymptotic behavior of $(barX,s^2_X)$ which ends up being jointly normal.
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    2 hours ago

















  • $begingroup$
    That's an interesting approach you've taken there, I'll have to think about it.
    $endgroup$
    – jbowman
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The dependence (necessarily) gets weaker at larger sample sizes so it's hard to see. Try smaller sample sizes, like n=5,6,7 and you'll see it more easily.
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    2 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Glen_b You're right. There's a more obvious relationship when I shrink down the sample size. Even in the image I posted, there appears to be some clustering in the lower right and left corners, which is present in the plot for the smaller sample size. Two follow-ups. 1) Is the dependence necessarily getting weaker because the population parameters can be varied independent of each other? 2) It seems wrong that the statistics would have any kind of dependence, but they clearly do. What causes this?
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    One way to get some insight is to examine the special features of the samples that get into those 'horns" at the top of Bruce's plots. In particular note that at n=5, you get the largest possible variance by all the points being close to 0 or 1, but because there's 5 observations, you need 3 at one end and 2 at the other, so the mean must be near to 0.4 or 0.6 but not near 0.5 (since putting one point in the middle will drop the variance a bit). If you had a heavy tailed distribution, both mean and variance would be most impacted by the most extreme observation ... ctd
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    2 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    ctd... and in that situation you get a strong correlation between $|barx-mu|$ and $s$ (giving two big "horns" either side of the population center on a plot of sd vs mean) -- with the uniform this correlation is somewhat negative. ... With large samples you'll head toward the asymptotic behavior of $(barX,s^2_X)$ which ends up being jointly normal.
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    2 hours ago
















$begingroup$
That's an interesting approach you've taken there, I'll have to think about it.
$endgroup$
– jbowman
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
That's an interesting approach you've taken there, I'll have to think about it.
$endgroup$
– jbowman
9 hours ago












$begingroup$
The dependence (necessarily) gets weaker at larger sample sizes so it's hard to see. Try smaller sample sizes, like n=5,6,7 and you'll see it more easily.
$endgroup$
– Glen_b
2 hours ago





$begingroup$
The dependence (necessarily) gets weaker at larger sample sizes so it's hard to see. Try smaller sample sizes, like n=5,6,7 and you'll see it more easily.
$endgroup$
– Glen_b
2 hours ago













$begingroup$
@Glen_b You're right. There's a more obvious relationship when I shrink down the sample size. Even in the image I posted, there appears to be some clustering in the lower right and left corners, which is present in the plot for the smaller sample size. Two follow-ups. 1) Is the dependence necessarily getting weaker because the population parameters can be varied independent of each other? 2) It seems wrong that the statistics would have any kind of dependence, but they clearly do. What causes this?
$endgroup$
– Dave
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Glen_b You're right. There's a more obvious relationship when I shrink down the sample size. Even in the image I posted, there appears to be some clustering in the lower right and left corners, which is present in the plot for the smaller sample size. Two follow-ups. 1) Is the dependence necessarily getting weaker because the population parameters can be varied independent of each other? 2) It seems wrong that the statistics would have any kind of dependence, but they clearly do. What causes this?
$endgroup$
– Dave
2 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
One way to get some insight is to examine the special features of the samples that get into those 'horns" at the top of Bruce's plots. In particular note that at n=5, you get the largest possible variance by all the points being close to 0 or 1, but because there's 5 observations, you need 3 at one end and 2 at the other, so the mean must be near to 0.4 or 0.6 but not near 0.5 (since putting one point in the middle will drop the variance a bit). If you had a heavy tailed distribution, both mean and variance would be most impacted by the most extreme observation ... ctd
$endgroup$
– Glen_b
2 hours ago





$begingroup$
One way to get some insight is to examine the special features of the samples that get into those 'horns" at the top of Bruce's plots. In particular note that at n=5, you get the largest possible variance by all the points being close to 0 or 1, but because there's 5 observations, you need 3 at one end and 2 at the other, so the mean must be near to 0.4 or 0.6 but not near 0.5 (since putting one point in the middle will drop the variance a bit). If you had a heavy tailed distribution, both mean and variance would be most impacted by the most extreme observation ... ctd
$endgroup$
– Glen_b
2 hours ago





1




1




$begingroup$
ctd... and in that situation you get a strong correlation between $|barx-mu|$ and $s$ (giving two big "horns" either side of the population center on a plot of sd vs mean) -- with the uniform this correlation is somewhat negative. ... With large samples you'll head toward the asymptotic behavior of $(barX,s^2_X)$ which ends up being jointly normal.
$endgroup$
– Glen_b
2 hours ago





$begingroup$
ctd... and in that situation you get a strong correlation between $|barx-mu|$ and $s$ (giving two big "horns" either side of the population center on a plot of sd vs mean) -- with the uniform this correlation is somewhat negative. ... With large samples you'll head toward the asymptotic behavior of $(barX,s^2_X)$ which ends up being jointly normal.
$endgroup$
– Glen_b
2 hours ago











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

It isn't that the mean and variance are dependent in the case of discrete distributions, it's that the sample mean and variance are dependent given the parameters of the distribution. The mean and variance themselves are fixed functions of the parameters of the distribution, and concepts such as "independence" don't apply to them. Consequently, you are asking the wrong hypothetical questions of yourself.



In the case of the discrete uniform distribution, plotting the results of 20,000 $(barx, s^2)$ pairs calculated from samples of 100 uniform $(1, 2, dots, 10)$ variates results in:



enter image description here



which shows pretty clearly that they aren't independent; the higher values of $s^2$ are located disproportionately towards the center of the range of $barx$. (They are, however, uncorrelated; a simple symmetry argument should convince us of that.)



Of course, an example cannot prove Glen's conjecture in the post you linked to that no discrete distribution exists with independent sample means and variances!






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    That's a good catch about statistic versus parameter. I've made a pretty extensive edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    10 hours ago


















2












$begingroup$

jbowman's Answer (+1) tells much of the story. Here is a little more.



(a) For data from a continuous uniform distribution, the sample mean
and SD are uncorrelated, but not independent. The 'outlines' of the plot emphasize the dependence.
Among continuous distributions, independence holds only for
normal.



enter image description here



set.seed(1234)
m = 10^5; n = 5
x = runif(m*n); DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT)
s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=".")


(b) Discrete uniform. Discreteness makes it possible to find a value $a$ of the mean and
a value $s$ of the SD such that $P(bar X = a) > 0,, P(S = s) > 0,$
but $P(bar X = a, X = s) = 0.$



enter image description here



set.seed(2019)
m = 20000; n = 5; x = sample(1:5, m*n, rep=T)
DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT)
s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=20)


(c) A rounded normal distribution is not normal. Discreteness causes
dependence.



enter image description here



set.seed(1776)
m = 10^5; n = 5
x = round(rnorm(m*n, 10, 1)); DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT); s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=20)


(d) Further to (a), using the distribution $mathsfBeta(.1,.1),$
instead of $mathsfBeta(1,1) equiv mathsfUnif(0,1).$
emphasizes the boundaries of the possible values of the sample mean
and SD. We are 'squashing' a 5-dimensional hypercube onto 2-space.
Images of some hyper-edges are clear.



enter image description here



set.seed(1066)
m = 10^5; n = 5
x = rbeta(m*n, .1, .1); DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT); s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=".")


Addendum per Comment.



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    Use ecdf on your last one. The scatterplot is wild! Anyway, if a uniform variable has dependence between $barx$ and $s^2$, how is it that we're getting some information about one by knowing the other, given that we can stretch the range or shift the center willy nilly and not affect the other value? If we get $barx=0$, we shouldn't know if $s^2 = 1$ or $s^2=100$, similar to how we can stretch the normal distribution without affecting the mean.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The criterion of independence is demanding. Lack of independence btw two RVs does not guarantee that it's easy to get info about one, knowing the value of the other. // In (d), not sure what ECDF of A or S would reveal. // Scatterplot in (d) shows 6 'points', images under transformation of 32 vertices of 5-d hypercube with multiplicities 1, 5, 10, 10, 5, 1 (from left to right). Multiplicities explain why 'top two' points are most distinct.
    $endgroup$
    – BruceET
    6 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    I don't mean that it's easy to get info about one if you know the other, but if you have independence, all you can go by is the marginal distribution. Consider two standard normal variables $X$ and $Y$ with $rho=0.9$. If you know that $x=1$, you don't know what $y$ equals, but you know that a value around $1$ is more likely than a value around $-1$. If $rho=0$, then a value around $1$ is just as likely as a value around $-1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    But that's for a nearly-linear relationship btw two standard normals. Mean and SD of samples are not so easy.
    $endgroup$
    – BruceET
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dave you do have information about one when you know the other. For example if the sample variance is really large, you know the sample mean isn't really close to 0.5 (see the gap at the top-centre of the first plot, for example)
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    2 hours ago














Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "65"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f422676%2findependence-of-mean-and-variance-of-discrete-uniform-distributions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2












$begingroup$

It isn't that the mean and variance are dependent in the case of discrete distributions, it's that the sample mean and variance are dependent given the parameters of the distribution. The mean and variance themselves are fixed functions of the parameters of the distribution, and concepts such as "independence" don't apply to them. Consequently, you are asking the wrong hypothetical questions of yourself.



In the case of the discrete uniform distribution, plotting the results of 20,000 $(barx, s^2)$ pairs calculated from samples of 100 uniform $(1, 2, dots, 10)$ variates results in:



enter image description here



which shows pretty clearly that they aren't independent; the higher values of $s^2$ are located disproportionately towards the center of the range of $barx$. (They are, however, uncorrelated; a simple symmetry argument should convince us of that.)



Of course, an example cannot prove Glen's conjecture in the post you linked to that no discrete distribution exists with independent sample means and variances!






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    That's a good catch about statistic versus parameter. I've made a pretty extensive edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    10 hours ago















2












$begingroup$

It isn't that the mean and variance are dependent in the case of discrete distributions, it's that the sample mean and variance are dependent given the parameters of the distribution. The mean and variance themselves are fixed functions of the parameters of the distribution, and concepts such as "independence" don't apply to them. Consequently, you are asking the wrong hypothetical questions of yourself.



In the case of the discrete uniform distribution, plotting the results of 20,000 $(barx, s^2)$ pairs calculated from samples of 100 uniform $(1, 2, dots, 10)$ variates results in:



enter image description here



which shows pretty clearly that they aren't independent; the higher values of $s^2$ are located disproportionately towards the center of the range of $barx$. (They are, however, uncorrelated; a simple symmetry argument should convince us of that.)



Of course, an example cannot prove Glen's conjecture in the post you linked to that no discrete distribution exists with independent sample means and variances!






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    That's a good catch about statistic versus parameter. I've made a pretty extensive edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    10 hours ago













2












2








2





$begingroup$

It isn't that the mean and variance are dependent in the case of discrete distributions, it's that the sample mean and variance are dependent given the parameters of the distribution. The mean and variance themselves are fixed functions of the parameters of the distribution, and concepts such as "independence" don't apply to them. Consequently, you are asking the wrong hypothetical questions of yourself.



In the case of the discrete uniform distribution, plotting the results of 20,000 $(barx, s^2)$ pairs calculated from samples of 100 uniform $(1, 2, dots, 10)$ variates results in:



enter image description here



which shows pretty clearly that they aren't independent; the higher values of $s^2$ are located disproportionately towards the center of the range of $barx$. (They are, however, uncorrelated; a simple symmetry argument should convince us of that.)



Of course, an example cannot prove Glen's conjecture in the post you linked to that no discrete distribution exists with independent sample means and variances!






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



It isn't that the mean and variance are dependent in the case of discrete distributions, it's that the sample mean and variance are dependent given the parameters of the distribution. The mean and variance themselves are fixed functions of the parameters of the distribution, and concepts such as "independence" don't apply to them. Consequently, you are asking the wrong hypothetical questions of yourself.



In the case of the discrete uniform distribution, plotting the results of 20,000 $(barx, s^2)$ pairs calculated from samples of 100 uniform $(1, 2, dots, 10)$ variates results in:



enter image description here



which shows pretty clearly that they aren't independent; the higher values of $s^2$ are located disproportionately towards the center of the range of $barx$. (They are, however, uncorrelated; a simple symmetry argument should convince us of that.)



Of course, an example cannot prove Glen's conjecture in the post you linked to that no discrete distribution exists with independent sample means and variances!







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 10 hours ago









jbowmanjbowman

25.8k3 gold badges45 silver badges82 bronze badges




25.8k3 gold badges45 silver badges82 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    That's a good catch about statistic versus parameter. I've made a pretty extensive edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    10 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    That's a good catch about statistic versus parameter. I've made a pretty extensive edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    10 hours ago















$begingroup$
That's a good catch about statistic versus parameter. I've made a pretty extensive edit.
$endgroup$
– Dave
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
That's a good catch about statistic versus parameter. I've made a pretty extensive edit.
$endgroup$
– Dave
10 hours ago













2












$begingroup$

jbowman's Answer (+1) tells much of the story. Here is a little more.



(a) For data from a continuous uniform distribution, the sample mean
and SD are uncorrelated, but not independent. The 'outlines' of the plot emphasize the dependence.
Among continuous distributions, independence holds only for
normal.



enter image description here



set.seed(1234)
m = 10^5; n = 5
x = runif(m*n); DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT)
s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=".")


(b) Discrete uniform. Discreteness makes it possible to find a value $a$ of the mean and
a value $s$ of the SD such that $P(bar X = a) > 0,, P(S = s) > 0,$
but $P(bar X = a, X = s) = 0.$



enter image description here



set.seed(2019)
m = 20000; n = 5; x = sample(1:5, m*n, rep=T)
DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT)
s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=20)


(c) A rounded normal distribution is not normal. Discreteness causes
dependence.



enter image description here



set.seed(1776)
m = 10^5; n = 5
x = round(rnorm(m*n, 10, 1)); DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT); s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=20)


(d) Further to (a), using the distribution $mathsfBeta(.1,.1),$
instead of $mathsfBeta(1,1) equiv mathsfUnif(0,1).$
emphasizes the boundaries of the possible values of the sample mean
and SD. We are 'squashing' a 5-dimensional hypercube onto 2-space.
Images of some hyper-edges are clear.



enter image description here



set.seed(1066)
m = 10^5; n = 5
x = rbeta(m*n, .1, .1); DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT); s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=".")


Addendum per Comment.



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    Use ecdf on your last one. The scatterplot is wild! Anyway, if a uniform variable has dependence between $barx$ and $s^2$, how is it that we're getting some information about one by knowing the other, given that we can stretch the range or shift the center willy nilly and not affect the other value? If we get $barx=0$, we shouldn't know if $s^2 = 1$ or $s^2=100$, similar to how we can stretch the normal distribution without affecting the mean.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The criterion of independence is demanding. Lack of independence btw two RVs does not guarantee that it's easy to get info about one, knowing the value of the other. // In (d), not sure what ECDF of A or S would reveal. // Scatterplot in (d) shows 6 'points', images under transformation of 32 vertices of 5-d hypercube with multiplicities 1, 5, 10, 10, 5, 1 (from left to right). Multiplicities explain why 'top two' points are most distinct.
    $endgroup$
    – BruceET
    6 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    I don't mean that it's easy to get info about one if you know the other, but if you have independence, all you can go by is the marginal distribution. Consider two standard normal variables $X$ and $Y$ with $rho=0.9$. If you know that $x=1$, you don't know what $y$ equals, but you know that a value around $1$ is more likely than a value around $-1$. If $rho=0$, then a value around $1$ is just as likely as a value around $-1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    But that's for a nearly-linear relationship btw two standard normals. Mean and SD of samples are not so easy.
    $endgroup$
    – BruceET
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dave you do have information about one when you know the other. For example if the sample variance is really large, you know the sample mean isn't really close to 0.5 (see the gap at the top-centre of the first plot, for example)
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    2 hours ago
















2












$begingroup$

jbowman's Answer (+1) tells much of the story. Here is a little more.



(a) For data from a continuous uniform distribution, the sample mean
and SD are uncorrelated, but not independent. The 'outlines' of the plot emphasize the dependence.
Among continuous distributions, independence holds only for
normal.



enter image description here



set.seed(1234)
m = 10^5; n = 5
x = runif(m*n); DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT)
s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=".")


(b) Discrete uniform. Discreteness makes it possible to find a value $a$ of the mean and
a value $s$ of the SD such that $P(bar X = a) > 0,, P(S = s) > 0,$
but $P(bar X = a, X = s) = 0.$



enter image description here



set.seed(2019)
m = 20000; n = 5; x = sample(1:5, m*n, rep=T)
DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT)
s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=20)


(c) A rounded normal distribution is not normal. Discreteness causes
dependence.



enter image description here



set.seed(1776)
m = 10^5; n = 5
x = round(rnorm(m*n, 10, 1)); DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT); s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=20)


(d) Further to (a), using the distribution $mathsfBeta(.1,.1),$
instead of $mathsfBeta(1,1) equiv mathsfUnif(0,1).$
emphasizes the boundaries of the possible values of the sample mean
and SD. We are 'squashing' a 5-dimensional hypercube onto 2-space.
Images of some hyper-edges are clear.



enter image description here



set.seed(1066)
m = 10^5; n = 5
x = rbeta(m*n, .1, .1); DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT); s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=".")


Addendum per Comment.



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    Use ecdf on your last one. The scatterplot is wild! Anyway, if a uniform variable has dependence between $barx$ and $s^2$, how is it that we're getting some information about one by knowing the other, given that we can stretch the range or shift the center willy nilly and not affect the other value? If we get $barx=0$, we shouldn't know if $s^2 = 1$ or $s^2=100$, similar to how we can stretch the normal distribution without affecting the mean.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The criterion of independence is demanding. Lack of independence btw two RVs does not guarantee that it's easy to get info about one, knowing the value of the other. // In (d), not sure what ECDF of A or S would reveal. // Scatterplot in (d) shows 6 'points', images under transformation of 32 vertices of 5-d hypercube with multiplicities 1, 5, 10, 10, 5, 1 (from left to right). Multiplicities explain why 'top two' points are most distinct.
    $endgroup$
    – BruceET
    6 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    I don't mean that it's easy to get info about one if you know the other, but if you have independence, all you can go by is the marginal distribution. Consider two standard normal variables $X$ and $Y$ with $rho=0.9$. If you know that $x=1$, you don't know what $y$ equals, but you know that a value around $1$ is more likely than a value around $-1$. If $rho=0$, then a value around $1$ is just as likely as a value around $-1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    But that's for a nearly-linear relationship btw two standard normals. Mean and SD of samples are not so easy.
    $endgroup$
    – BruceET
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dave you do have information about one when you know the other. For example if the sample variance is really large, you know the sample mean isn't really close to 0.5 (see the gap at the top-centre of the first plot, for example)
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    2 hours ago














2












2








2





$begingroup$

jbowman's Answer (+1) tells much of the story. Here is a little more.



(a) For data from a continuous uniform distribution, the sample mean
and SD are uncorrelated, but not independent. The 'outlines' of the plot emphasize the dependence.
Among continuous distributions, independence holds only for
normal.



enter image description here



set.seed(1234)
m = 10^5; n = 5
x = runif(m*n); DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT)
s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=".")


(b) Discrete uniform. Discreteness makes it possible to find a value $a$ of the mean and
a value $s$ of the SD such that $P(bar X = a) > 0,, P(S = s) > 0,$
but $P(bar X = a, X = s) = 0.$



enter image description here



set.seed(2019)
m = 20000; n = 5; x = sample(1:5, m*n, rep=T)
DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT)
s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=20)


(c) A rounded normal distribution is not normal. Discreteness causes
dependence.



enter image description here



set.seed(1776)
m = 10^5; n = 5
x = round(rnorm(m*n, 10, 1)); DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT); s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=20)


(d) Further to (a), using the distribution $mathsfBeta(.1,.1),$
instead of $mathsfBeta(1,1) equiv mathsfUnif(0,1).$
emphasizes the boundaries of the possible values of the sample mean
and SD. We are 'squashing' a 5-dimensional hypercube onto 2-space.
Images of some hyper-edges are clear.



enter image description here



set.seed(1066)
m = 10^5; n = 5
x = rbeta(m*n, .1, .1); DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT); s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=".")


Addendum per Comment.



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



jbowman's Answer (+1) tells much of the story. Here is a little more.



(a) For data from a continuous uniform distribution, the sample mean
and SD are uncorrelated, but not independent. The 'outlines' of the plot emphasize the dependence.
Among continuous distributions, independence holds only for
normal.



enter image description here



set.seed(1234)
m = 10^5; n = 5
x = runif(m*n); DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT)
s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=".")


(b) Discrete uniform. Discreteness makes it possible to find a value $a$ of the mean and
a value $s$ of the SD such that $P(bar X = a) > 0,, P(S = s) > 0,$
but $P(bar X = a, X = s) = 0.$



enter image description here



set.seed(2019)
m = 20000; n = 5; x = sample(1:5, m*n, rep=T)
DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT)
s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=20)


(c) A rounded normal distribution is not normal. Discreteness causes
dependence.



enter image description here



set.seed(1776)
m = 10^5; n = 5
x = round(rnorm(m*n, 10, 1)); DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT); s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=20)


(d) Further to (a), using the distribution $mathsfBeta(.1,.1),$
instead of $mathsfBeta(1,1) equiv mathsfUnif(0,1).$
emphasizes the boundaries of the possible values of the sample mean
and SD. We are 'squashing' a 5-dimensional hypercube onto 2-space.
Images of some hyper-edges are clear.



enter image description here



set.seed(1066)
m = 10^5; n = 5
x = rbeta(m*n, .1, .1); DAT = matrix(x, nrow=m)
a = rowMeans(DAT); s = apply(DAT, 1, sd)
plot(a,s, pch=".")


Addendum per Comment.



enter image description here







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 6 hours ago

























answered 9 hours ago









BruceETBruceET

13k1 gold badge9 silver badges26 bronze badges




13k1 gold badge9 silver badges26 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    Use ecdf on your last one. The scatterplot is wild! Anyway, if a uniform variable has dependence between $barx$ and $s^2$, how is it that we're getting some information about one by knowing the other, given that we can stretch the range or shift the center willy nilly and not affect the other value? If we get $barx=0$, we shouldn't know if $s^2 = 1$ or $s^2=100$, similar to how we can stretch the normal distribution without affecting the mean.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The criterion of independence is demanding. Lack of independence btw two RVs does not guarantee that it's easy to get info about one, knowing the value of the other. // In (d), not sure what ECDF of A or S would reveal. // Scatterplot in (d) shows 6 'points', images under transformation of 32 vertices of 5-d hypercube with multiplicities 1, 5, 10, 10, 5, 1 (from left to right). Multiplicities explain why 'top two' points are most distinct.
    $endgroup$
    – BruceET
    6 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    I don't mean that it's easy to get info about one if you know the other, but if you have independence, all you can go by is the marginal distribution. Consider two standard normal variables $X$ and $Y$ with $rho=0.9$. If you know that $x=1$, you don't know what $y$ equals, but you know that a value around $1$ is more likely than a value around $-1$. If $rho=0$, then a value around $1$ is just as likely as a value around $-1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    But that's for a nearly-linear relationship btw two standard normals. Mean and SD of samples are not so easy.
    $endgroup$
    – BruceET
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dave you do have information about one when you know the other. For example if the sample variance is really large, you know the sample mean isn't really close to 0.5 (see the gap at the top-centre of the first plot, for example)
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    2 hours ago

















  • $begingroup$
    Use ecdf on your last one. The scatterplot is wild! Anyway, if a uniform variable has dependence between $barx$ and $s^2$, how is it that we're getting some information about one by knowing the other, given that we can stretch the range or shift the center willy nilly and not affect the other value? If we get $barx=0$, we shouldn't know if $s^2 = 1$ or $s^2=100$, similar to how we can stretch the normal distribution without affecting the mean.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The criterion of independence is demanding. Lack of independence btw two RVs does not guarantee that it's easy to get info about one, knowing the value of the other. // In (d), not sure what ECDF of A or S would reveal. // Scatterplot in (d) shows 6 'points', images under transformation of 32 vertices of 5-d hypercube with multiplicities 1, 5, 10, 10, 5, 1 (from left to right). Multiplicities explain why 'top two' points are most distinct.
    $endgroup$
    – BruceET
    6 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    I don't mean that it's easy to get info about one if you know the other, but if you have independence, all you can go by is the marginal distribution. Consider two standard normal variables $X$ and $Y$ with $rho=0.9$. If you know that $x=1$, you don't know what $y$ equals, but you know that a value around $1$ is more likely than a value around $-1$. If $rho=0$, then a value around $1$ is just as likely as a value around $-1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    But that's for a nearly-linear relationship btw two standard normals. Mean and SD of samples are not so easy.
    $endgroup$
    – BruceET
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Dave you do have information about one when you know the other. For example if the sample variance is really large, you know the sample mean isn't really close to 0.5 (see the gap at the top-centre of the first plot, for example)
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    2 hours ago
















$begingroup$
Use ecdf on your last one. The scatterplot is wild! Anyway, if a uniform variable has dependence between $barx$ and $s^2$, how is it that we're getting some information about one by knowing the other, given that we can stretch the range or shift the center willy nilly and not affect the other value? If we get $barx=0$, we shouldn't know if $s^2 = 1$ or $s^2=100$, similar to how we can stretch the normal distribution without affecting the mean.
$endgroup$
– Dave
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
Use ecdf on your last one. The scatterplot is wild! Anyway, if a uniform variable has dependence between $barx$ and $s^2$, how is it that we're getting some information about one by knowing the other, given that we can stretch the range or shift the center willy nilly and not affect the other value? If we get $barx=0$, we shouldn't know if $s^2 = 1$ or $s^2=100$, similar to how we can stretch the normal distribution without affecting the mean.
$endgroup$
– Dave
7 hours ago












$begingroup$
The criterion of independence is demanding. Lack of independence btw two RVs does not guarantee that it's easy to get info about one, knowing the value of the other. // In (d), not sure what ECDF of A or S would reveal. // Scatterplot in (d) shows 6 'points', images under transformation of 32 vertices of 5-d hypercube with multiplicities 1, 5, 10, 10, 5, 1 (from left to right). Multiplicities explain why 'top two' points are most distinct.
$endgroup$
– BruceET
6 hours ago





$begingroup$
The criterion of independence is demanding. Lack of independence btw two RVs does not guarantee that it's easy to get info about one, knowing the value of the other. // In (d), not sure what ECDF of A or S would reveal. // Scatterplot in (d) shows 6 'points', images under transformation of 32 vertices of 5-d hypercube with multiplicities 1, 5, 10, 10, 5, 1 (from left to right). Multiplicities explain why 'top two' points are most distinct.
$endgroup$
– BruceET
6 hours ago













$begingroup$
I don't mean that it's easy to get info about one if you know the other, but if you have independence, all you can go by is the marginal distribution. Consider two standard normal variables $X$ and $Y$ with $rho=0.9$. If you know that $x=1$, you don't know what $y$ equals, but you know that a value around $1$ is more likely than a value around $-1$. If $rho=0$, then a value around $1$ is just as likely as a value around $-1$.
$endgroup$
– Dave
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
I don't mean that it's easy to get info about one if you know the other, but if you have independence, all you can go by is the marginal distribution. Consider two standard normal variables $X$ and $Y$ with $rho=0.9$. If you know that $x=1$, you don't know what $y$ equals, but you know that a value around $1$ is more likely than a value around $-1$. If $rho=0$, then a value around $1$ is just as likely as a value around $-1$.
$endgroup$
– Dave
6 hours ago












$begingroup$
But that's for a nearly-linear relationship btw two standard normals. Mean and SD of samples are not so easy.
$endgroup$
– BruceET
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
But that's for a nearly-linear relationship btw two standard normals. Mean and SD of samples are not so easy.
$endgroup$
– BruceET
6 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@Dave you do have information about one when you know the other. For example if the sample variance is really large, you know the sample mean isn't really close to 0.5 (see the gap at the top-centre of the first plot, for example)
$endgroup$
– Glen_b
2 hours ago





$begingroup$
@Dave you do have information about one when you know the other. For example if the sample variance is really large, you know the sample mean isn't really close to 0.5 (see the gap at the top-centre of the first plot, for example)
$endgroup$
– Glen_b
2 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f422676%2findependence-of-mean-and-variance-of-discrete-uniform-distributions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

199年 目錄 大件事 到箇年出世嗰人 到箇年死嗰人 節慶、風俗習慣 導覽選單