This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Variance article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Mathematics Top‑priority 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-priority on the project's priority scale. Statistics Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

The article currently states: "If the conditions of the law of large numbers hold for the squared observations, s^2 is a consistent estimator of σ^2. One can see indeed that the variance of the estimator tends asymptotically to zero. An asymptotically equivalent formula was given in Kenney and Keeping (1951:164), Rose and Smith (2002:264), and Weisstein (n.d.).[15][16][17]"

I'm not certain this is completely accurate. As long as the population variance exists, then the sample variance should be a consistent estimator of it. The statement about the law of large numbers here seems to be confusing or misleading. If I am misunderstanding something, then the text should be edited to clarify what is meant. Which law of large numbers? Kenny and Keeping reference link is broken too. Jraudhi (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

With respect to the section "Matrix notation for the variance of a linear combination":

• a central dot appears, presumably for the dot product of two vector: why not stick to the transpose notation used before in the same section?
• a primed 1 appears: what does it mean?

Further, throughout approximately the first half of the article, I observe a rather consistent use of:

• square brackets around the argument of the expectation operator;
• round parentheses around the argument of the variance operator.

That changes approximately halfway the article. Is there a good reason for this that I fail to know of? Or can I change the notation according to my observations for the the first half of the article?Redav (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

On Windows Firefox everything looks good.

But on Windows Google Chrome: I just noticed, that there is a miunus missing in third line of the formulas to "The expression for the variance can be expanded as follows:". The minus symbol shows up in the source text, but somehow I don't see it when viewing the website. 212.201.73.246 (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)bReply

The picture in this section, its part 4., shows width: n, hight: 2. The hight shown should be: σ^2 ("sigma squared"). (The larger-sized picture shows n x σ^2 - correctly.) --Szozdakosvi (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I second this, the image should be updated so it shows sigma^2 correctly as the height of that rectangle representing the variance. It's currently misleading 128.172.99.27 (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply