Talk:Gaussian function

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Statistics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Text or other creative content from this version of Integral of a Gaussian function was copied or moved into Gaussian function with this edit on 10 March 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 10.

An undefined variable called B keeps showing up inside the "Multivariate gaussian" paragraph. I have no idea if it is simply: B = A, or if there is something subtle going on here, but either we need to add a definition for B, or just remove it from the math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:620:600:6000:ECDF:3A24:4CBA:7595 (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I believe you are right, I just let B = A in one place. But latter, there is a B that is defined as B = A + A' and I didn't yet figure out what it means. Bdmy (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

What's worse, I believe the definition of the Gaussian including the shift vector is wrong, or at least not explained enough. The definition used in the multivariate normal is something along the lines of ${\displaystyle n*e^{-(x-s)^{T}A(x-s)}}$, where n is the normalisation factor, A is the inverse of the covariance matrix and s is a shift (the mean for multivariate normal distributions). In the article it says ${\displaystyle e^{-x^{T}Ax+s^{T}x}}$. According to my calculations, experiments and intuition those are not equivalent. For instance, with larger s, the value of the peak becomes larger, while this does not happen with the first definition. Also, if it's only shifted, the integral should not change. So imo, whatever it is, it is not a shifted gaussian. --128.130.118.54 (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The opening formula

At the peak, when x=b, everything in the large parenthesis should be 0 ( x-b=0, so (x-b)^2=0, so -((x-b)^2)/(2c^2)=0 ).

This should result in: a EXP 0 = 1.0, regardless of the value of a. But the result should be a, the peak value, by definition of a.

So what part of this am I not understanding? The meaning of EXP? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.?.? (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'm reading that EXP usually (but not always) means the constant e (2.718...) raised to a given power. It would probably be a good idea to make this explicit somewhere. Anyway, at the peak this value should still be 1.0 for the reasons given above, but I have to admit my code is working beautifully now!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.200.163 (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4115:3e00:307a:f470:d18b:1cc9 (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone provide the source of the equations listed under Meaning of parameters for the general equation, i.e. coefficients a, b and c? I have calculated them on my own and a couple of signs turned out different. I wonder if there's a textbook that contains the full derivation or the outcome.

KenyaSong (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 February 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NathanielJL.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Since the lower-case "gaussian" is pretty common now, I think adding this to the opening sentence is wise.

Spope3 (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why is this called gaussian, since it already appeared in the works of de Moivre ?

I think it would be useful to add some history part saying that this was not invented by Gauss. 2001:861:3008:37D0:34F7:B9ED:A9EB:BEF3 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply