Talk:Cyclostationary process

Statistics Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Shouldn't have to parse an equation to understand what it is. That's fine for understanding exactly what it is, but you can explain it in plain english first. — Omegatron 13:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is better. I added a lead with not equations and a simple example. I also did some research and clarified some of the concepts that previously confused me, and probably prompted 148.65.200.94's edit. --Zvika 08:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Father of CS,
Please consider the following comment by one humble Wikipedian, who is neither father nor mother of cyclostationarity, and yet still has the nerve to think his previous version might be slightly more accurate, in some respects, than your recent edit. Your current version implies that wide-sense cyclostationarity is equivalent to cyclostationarity, while in my opinion this is not true. Please correct this or at least explain why you think you are right. Thank you! --Zvika 10:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you have not commented, I have done my best to merge your changes with the previous version. I hope you will approve :-) --Zvika 13:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example

Examples would be nice. If I understand it, any deterministic periodic function is cyclostationary? e.g. sine.

Also, this sentence, which occurs twice, could be more specific (i.e. relate to the Fourier Transform): "A time series that contains no additive finite-strength sine-wave components"

I think it's possible to take a cyclostationary process and add in a new random component (e.g. a random shift, with the shift length less than the period) to make a stationary process. Can anyone expound on this? Lavaka (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition (Bayesian vs Frequentist)

I think the definition given in this old version is clearer than the current one. Probabilistic vs. Deterministic is not a rightful description of the axioms of Bayesian and Frequentist probability, which I'm fairly certain is the intended distinction. --163.1.81.63 (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Probability student[reply]

Typo?

I guess it should be a= N / To instead of multiplication. Kurt34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurt34 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Translate this into comprehensible language

This appears early in the article:<blockquote>it is a reasonable approximation that the temperature on December 20 of different years has identical statistics</blockquote>Can someone explain what that means? Michael Hardy (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]