On 3/3/2008 9:10 AM, Rogers, James A [PGRD Groton] wrote: > As someone of partly French heritage, I would also ask how this > distribution came to be called "Gaussian". It seems very unfair to de > Moivre, who discovered the distribution at least half a century earlier. > :-)
Just an example of Stigler's Law. Duncan Murdoch > > > --Jim Rogers > > > On Mar 2, 2008, at 7:33 AM, (Ted Harding) wrote: > >> Hi Folks, >> Apologies to anyone who'd prefer not to see this query >> on this list; but I'm asking because it is probably the >> forum where I'm most likely to get a good answer! >> >> I'm interested in the provenance of the name "normal >> distribution" (for what I'd really prefer to call the >> "Gaussian" distribution). >> >> According to Wikipedia, "The name "normal distribution" >> was coined independently by Charles S. Peirce, Francis >> Galton and Wilhelm Lexis around 1875." >> >> So be it, if that was the case -- but I would like to >> know why they chose the name "normal": what did they >> intend to convey? >> >> As background: I'm reflecting a bit on the usage in >> statistics of "everyday language" as techincal terms, >> as in "significantly different". This, for instance, >> is likely to be misunderstood by the general publidc >> when they encounter statements in the media. >> >> Likewise, "normally distributed" would probably be >> interpreted as "distributed in the way one would >> normally expect" or, perhaps, "there was nothing >> unusual about the distribution." >> >> Comments welcome! >> With thanks, >> Ted. >> > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
