Talk:Gamma process

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Gamma process → Gamma process (mathematics) — To be able to disambiguate from Gamma process (astrophysics) TRauscher (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Don't move as the astrophysics is just a redirect to P-nuclei. Articles always have priority over redirects. Put a hatnote at the top of the math topic pointing readers to p-nuclei. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  23:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose . Gamma process (astrophysics) is currently only a redirect to P-nuclei, which doesn't mention the term "gamma process". Google and Google Scholar searches also suggest that the probability usage is more common. From WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a WP:hatnote would seem adequate here. Qwfp (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Remark: Yes, P-nuclei mentions and explains the term "gamma process" but it is written as &gamma;-process (and I tried to avoid having greek characters in a page name) --TRauscher (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A hatnote at Gamma process pointing to P-nuclei is all that is required at this stage. Even this assumes that the lead of P-nuclei gets a minor refactor to give the hatnote and also the existing redirect from Gamma process (astrophysics) a sensible target, see principle of least astonishment: If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense. Andrewa (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article Plans
I plan on editing this article and expanding it to cover more about the gamma process, while also including some examples of the gamma process. In addition to this, I want to put this article in plain english so it is easier for the general public to understand. Studentstudent84 (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGW3307 Adv Writing for the Sciences
— Assignment last updated by Number1PecanHater (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Reactions
I can't tell from this particle what a Gamma process really is, but I've gathered the following

1) It is a Lévy process.

2) It is nondecreasing with probability 1.

3) It is a pure jump process. That means that all of the increase can be attributed to jumps. There can be at most countably many jumps.

4) With probability 1, there are an infinite number of jumps in every interval. This seems to be related to the $$1/x$$ that occurs in $$\nu(x)$$, but this is the kind of thing where fuller explanations would help.

5) I would like to know: what are the increments of a Gamma process? From the fact that it is a Lévy process (stationary increments), I guess the formula in Marginal distribution gives the increment, and they are gamma distributions.

6) The statement The gamma process is a process which measures the number of occurrences of independent gamma-distributed variables over a span of time in the section entitled Plain English definition is unfortunately too vague to interpret mathematically.

7) The introduction says  The gamma process is a stochastic or random process consisting of independently distributed gamma distributions where $$N(t)$$ represents the number of event occurrences from time 0 to time $$t$$.

But $$N(t)$$ is not mentioned anywhere else. This makes no sense logically.

Also what does consisting of mean here? Sum? Collection? Marginals?

8) Having a section entitled Plain English definition is an admission of weakness. It just means the main text needs to be rewritten.

Summary: Yes, the article is too technical, especially the introduction. Write fuller explanations.

2A02:1210:2642:4A00:A0E6:303B:F5CA:E494 (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)