RolfAndreassen comments on Ask an experimental physicist - Less Wrong

35 Post author: RolfAndreassen 08 June 2012 11:43PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (294)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 14 June 2012 08:26:27PM *  1 point [-]

It looks to me like we've bridged the gap between the approaches. We are doing the same thing, but the physics case is much more specific: We have a generating function in mind and just want to know its parameters, and we look only at the linear average, we don't vary the powers (*). So we don't use the tools you mentioned in the comment that started this thread, because they're adapted to the much more general case.

(*) Edit to add: Actually, on further thought, that's not entirely true. There are cases where we take moments of distributions and whatnot; a friend of mine who was a PhD student at the same time as me worked on such an analysis. It's just sufficiently rare (or maybe just rare in my experience!) that it didn't come to my mind right away.

Comment author: magfrump 14 June 2012 10:01:02PM 1 point [-]

Okay, so my hypothesis that basically all of the things that I care about are swept under the rug because you only care about what I would call trivial cases was essentially right.

And it definitely makes sense that if you've already restricted to a specific function and you just want parameters that you really don't need to deal with higher moments.