Talk:Singular distribution

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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Mathematics Start‑class Mid‑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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Untitled

"A singular distribution is not a discrete probability distribution because each discrete point has a zero probability" Is this correct?I think each discrete point has nonzero probability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Srgvie (talk • contribs).

Well, taking the Cantor distribution as an example, each point indeed has a zero probability. Indeed the definition "a singular distribution is a probability distribution concentrated on a measure zero set where the probability of each point in that set is zero" makes this clear: every point where the distribution is concentrated has zero probability. --Henrygb 21:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a little confusion here, at least for me. So let's make the things clear: Discrete probability distribution: each point has a nonzero probability. Singular distribution:each point has a zero probability. Ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srgvie (talk • contribs) 21:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Measure zero !?!?

I am not convinced that the requirement that the distribution be non-vanishing only on a set of measure zero is germane/important/correct. One example is the CDF built from the fat Cantor set, which I think qualifies as a singular distribution w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure, but clearly is singular on a set of measure greater than zero. I give two more examples on the talk page for singular function, which appears to have the same 'measure-zero' problem ... linas (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]