Skip to main content
11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 13, 2022 at 13:50 comment added Henry.L Sure. I think so, but also more restrictive.
Dec 13, 2022 at 9:18 comment added equaeghe @Henry.L: m (minimum) and M (maximum) are bounds, so their results hold. That means that the extra assumption I'm making is that the minimum and maximum are known (that is explicit). So then given that, are my bounds tighter?
Dec 12, 2022 at 6:54 comment added Henry.L @equaeghe The theorems you cited (Davies-Nagy) does not assume that $m=x_{(1)}$ nor $M=x_{(n)}$, they just say bounded variables. You are putting additional assumptions and claim a different result, so it is difficult to say what you mean by "tighter"?
May 7, 2018 at 12:26 history edited equaeghe CC BY-SA 4.0
clarify that I am interested in general real-valued samples, not discrete ones
May 7, 2018 at 11:50 history edited equaeghe CC BY-SA 4.0
clarified role of sample size in context
May 6, 2018 at 10:21 history tweeted twitter.com/StackStats/status/993073346668564481
May 4, 2018 at 20:10 answer added Steve Kass timeline score: 1
Dec 7, 2017 at 21:32 comment added equaeghe $\kappa$ is defined implicitly by the next-to-last displayed equation: $m\leq\kappa=-(n_mm+n_MM)\leq M$.
Dec 7, 2017 at 16:31 comment added whuber I must be having problems reading today, because despite scanning this question many times I cannot find a definition of "$\kappa$" anywhere: exactly how is it determined by $M, m,n,$ and $\mu$ alone? BTW, the comments to the question at stats.stackexchange.com/questions/142655 might be of some interest concerning the upper bound.
Dec 6, 2017 at 22:41 review First posts
Dec 6, 2017 at 23:32
Dec 6, 2017 at 22:37 history asked equaeghe CC BY-SA 3.0