Testwiki:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2017 July 2
From testwiki
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Template:Error:not substituted
{| width = "100%"
|- ! colspan="3" align="center" | Mathematics desk |- ! width="20%" align="left" | < July 1 ! width="25%" align="center"|<< Jun | July | Aug >> ! width="20%" align="right" |Current desk > |}
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
July 2
Infinity and existence
1. Is it conventionally acceptable to write E[X] < ∞ when you mean that E[X] is finite?
2. Is it conventionally acceptable to say that E[X] does not exist when you mean that E[X] = ∞?
Thanks in advance! Loraof (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've seen this more commonly applied to integrals (of which E[X] for continuous distributions is a special case) when discussing absolute convergence. One should distinguish between the cases of having infinite value and no value (e.g. does not exist, whereas one could safely write ).--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Convention depends on context, but I would say "yes" to the first and "maybe" to the second (for the reason Jasper Deng mentions). --JBL (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'd say "yes" to the first and "no" to the second, but opinions may differ. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Meni. The "does not exist" nomenclature commonly excluded +/- infinity, if not always. This is because things like expected values are often implicitly treated as belonging to the Extended real numbers, and in that case, E[X] d.n.e is distinctly different from E[X]=+\- ∞. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Trigonometric Identities
How many trigonometric identities are there in mathematics?41.58.87.37 (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)