Talk:Multinomial distribution

You can either use sigma and pi for expressing sum and product, or you can use three dots. Why use both ? Bo Jacoby 09:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Constraint on probabilities

This is just a matter of style, but I honestly think the page is clearer when the constraint on the probabilities is expressed in an equation next to the density. This way, the reader doesn’t have to “imagine” trials before realizing that the p's sum to one. And this density is expressed in a similar way on Wolfram’s page: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MultinomialDistribution.html Steve8675309 15:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a matter of style to say "It is also required..." when you're not talking about things that are required. Michael Hardy 20:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Casella and Berger present this distribution in Statistical Inference, they show that the p’s sum to one (p.180 in 2nd edition). They also describe the trials and outcomes experiment that this distribution can model, but did not think the equation was so “redundant” that it needed to be omitted. Maybe it’s just more obvious to you than it is to Casella and Berger. Have a nice day! Steve8675309 18:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one ever said it was so redundant that it needs to be omitted. I said it was redundant to include it twice. Michael Hardy 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and what do you mean by saying they "showed that" the sum is 1? If it's one of the hypotheses, it's not something that one "shows" (i.e. proves). Michael Hardy 20:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]