#1,737 in Business & money books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of Statistics, 4th Edition

Sentiment score: 2
Reddit mentions: 7

We found 7 Reddit mentions of Statistics, 4th Edition . Here are the top ones.

Statistics, 4th Edition
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
Specs:
Height10.3 Inches
Length7.6 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateFebruary 2007
Weight3.22756751568 Pounds
Width1.6 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 7 comments on Statistics, 4th Edition :

u/Sarcuss · 6 pointsr/statistics

I would say: Go for it as long as you are interested in the job :)

For study references for remembering R and Statistics, I think all you would need would be:

For R, data cleaning and the such: http://r4ds.had.co.nz/ and for basic statistics with R probably either Daalgard for Applied Statistics with R and something like OpenIntroStats or Freedman for review of stats

u/berf · 5 pointsr/statistics

controlled experiment. Read Chapters 1 and 2 of Freedman, Pisani, and Purves.

u/TheAntiRudin · 3 pointsr/math

For an elementary introduction to statistics that avoids a lot of the intimidating notation, I think that Statistics by Freedman, Pisani and Purves is by far the best. In fact, I think it's the best introduction to statistics, period. Not only does it use "normal" language, but it does a much better job of explaining the material, and a lot of the nuances and pitfalls, than the standard notation-heavy textbooks at that level. That's why the best universities tend to use that book.

u/Jalapeno2257 · 3 pointsr/AskAcademia

Freedman, Pisani, and Purves is the text I have used for teaching undergrads. Maybe start there for a refresher on probability theory, then move to Degroot and Schervish after if you have time/desire. FPP is very basic and mostly intuition, then DS gets more technical.

You should also brush up on calculus. At least be able to take (and understand) first and second partials. This will save you a lot of trouble later. Then work on linear algebra. Although you’re a psych person, a very good text that will give the basics of both calculus and linear algebra is Chiang and Wainwright, a math Econ book. Despite the difference in substance, it’s the most lucid as well as basic of texts I know of on the subject. So if you’ve never done calculus or linear algebra, this is a good place to start. Chapters 4-7 for basics, 8-10 for more fun.

https://www.amazon.com/Statistics-4th-David-Freedman/dp/0393929728

https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Statistics-4th-Morris-DeGroot/dp/0321500466

https://www.amazon.com/Fundamental-Mathematical-Economics-Wainwright-Professor/dp/0070109109

You can definitely find used, older editions, and international versions that are relatively cheap.

u/djao · 2 pointsr/math

I'm sorry, I don't teach high school and I have a full-time job already. I'm not on some sort of crusade to invent a perfect curriculum. I do think that even trivial reforms would lead to dramatic improvements, and that in any such situation we should first implement tne trivial improvements without insisting on a fully perfected solution beforehand. Your stance seems to be one of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I don't agree at all.

Example of a trivial reform: remove high school calculus entirely (which you really can learn in university), and replace it with statistics taught from (say) this book, which I can vouch requires no calculus. This approach doesn't result in the perfect outcome of everybody learning statistics, but it results in a lot more people learning statistics without having to make a hard choice about what to remove, since removing calculus for statistics is a no-brainer.

If the problem is that we don't have enough high school teachers who can teach statistics, then let's fix that problem instead of just using that problem as an excuse to do nothing.

u/efrique · 2 pointsr/statistics

> she didn't know how useful it would be

probably more employable than geography

> Do you guys have any recommendations on where to develop my knowledge and skills?

There's a bunch of free and inexpensive stuff around .. but there's also a lot of bad free/inexpensive stuff around; you have to be a bit discerning (which is hard when you're trying to learn it).

It might sound a bit old-school but I'd suggest going to a university library and finding some decent stats texts; you probably want to avoid the stuff that says "11th edition".

Find several that you like and work with those for a while

Some you might look for:

Statistics, Freedman, Pisani & Purves (any edition)

Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, Moore & McCabe (5th edition or earlier)

For a bit of theory (you'll need a bit of mathematics for this but not a ton of it):

Introduction To The Theory Of Statistics, Mood Graybill And Boes

These are all old books. You should be able to get them second hand for cheap, or read them in a library. They'll be a good grounding, but you'll need to be able to ask questions as well.

Places like this one and stats.stackexchange.com can be handy resources. I've seen determined people teach themselves a lot of statistics with only a bit of guidance so it can certainly be done.

> Do I need programming, if so, what would be the best programming language to learn?

It would be best to learn some, yes, because modern statistics relies on it heavily. You don't necessarily have to do it immediately but getting an early start (and using it to help with learning stats) will be better than leaving it really long.

Two main things are widely used ... R and Python. Both are free. The second is more of a mainstream programming language, the first is a statistics package as well as a more specialized language

Learn one or both; my own suggestion would be to try R but other people may have different advice.

If you want to be a programmer rather than a statistician who uses code to solve statistical problems, python would be the better choice.


u/narium · -2 pointsr/TeraOnline

Holy shit.

Read what you said, and think about it. Use the thing in your head called a brain.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Okay now that you thought about and probably didn't realize it, you can't look at it that way at all. I suggest you learn some basic statistics. I suggest a book like this http://www.amazon.com/Statistics-4th-David-Freedman/dp/0393929728/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422232813&sr=8-1&keywords=statistics&pebp=1422232818779&peasin=393929728 to educate yourself with.

.

.


.

.


.

.


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

In case that's too difficult for you, let me spell it out for you.

We established that Cyclone does more damage than Evasive Smash yes? They both have double crit glyphs yes? (Assuming you glyphed crit rate and power on Evasive Smash.)

Evasive Smash and Cyclone have the same crit rate.

So let's say Cyclone has a 60% crit chance.

So you average Cyclone will have 3 hits crit and 2 hits white. Agreed?

Now lets look at Evasive Smash. With a 60% crit chance, you have a 3/5 chance of it being a crit, in which case it will do more damage than the Cyclone, and 2/5 of not critting in which case it will do significantly less damage than Cyclone.

Now that's only looking at a single case of Cyclone vs Evasive Smash, which we cannot do. A more reasonable test comparison would be 100 instances of Cyclone (for a total of 500 hits) vs 100 instances of Evasive Smash.

For a 60% crit chance for both skills,

Cyclone -> 300 critical, 200 non-critical

Evasive Smash -> 60 critical, 40 non-critical

Follow?

Now let's compare 300 criticals of Cyclone to 60 criticals of Evasive Smash. As previously established, 5 hits of Cyclone will do more damage than 1 hit of Evasive Smash.

300/60 = 5

Thus, using Evasive Smash over Cyclone will always result in a loss of damage, to say nothing of the loss in DPS from the additional time Evasive Smash takes to execute.

Please, learn some basic high school math before you post again so you don't look like an uneducated peasant.