# Stat Examples

Wondered what people think about using examples for the stat definitions that include background info for the dataset. If we are aiming this glossary for ages 5-18 then the info provided should be particularly useful for users with unsophisticated understanding of math. I'm wondering if these learners have an easier time understanding concepts when the examples are based in real data. This approach could be used for all of the statistics (and maybe also probability?) definitions.

See MathGloss/S/Standard_deviation for an example of a "reality-based" example.

Thoughts?

10:52, 6 February 2009

I actually prefer designing examples as close to reality as possible.

The approach on your example is perfect. Let's show the math's beauty and how useful is for solving real situations.

I fixed the large formula in order to make it easier to manage.

I apologize in advance for any grammar mistake. I am improving my english, but sometimes I think in spanish. The good news are "Math is a universal language" :-). I'll appreciate all grammar corrections you do.

Cheers, Gladys Gahona--chela5808 16:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

04:49, 7 February 2009

Glad you agree about realistic examples. I'm not crazy about the long jump example, but it does the job. I saw your break-up of the long formula. I knew it needed to be done, but my LaTeX is coming along slowly and I needed a bigger block of time to attempt it. Your steps seem just right. I added some more English instruction (your English is fabulous -- I wish I were as fluent in Spanish, I'm just barely a beginner).

I wanted to put each step in the example into a numbered list. I think beginners will find that easier...step 1, step 2... But I can't get the list markup to work. Any thoughts on why it doesn't work? Do we need to use a workaround with math formulas (because of the new line issues)?

--Alison Snieckus 20:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

08:14, 8 February 2009

Wiki list markup only works on continuous lines. In this case numbered list must be forced by hand.

Cheers. --chela5808 05:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

17:46, 8 February 2009

I figured that might be the case. Thanks.

--Alison Snieckus 18:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

06:45, 9 February 2009