We say that a random variable X has a lognormal distribution if its logarithm, Y = log X, is normally distributed. The normal distribution often occurs when a random variable comes about by combining a bunch of small independent contributions, but those contributions combine additively; when the combination is multiplicative instead, lognormals occur. For example, lognormal distributions often occur in models of financial markets.
But of course X = exp Y, so the variable we care about is the exponential of a normal. Why isn't it called expnormal?
A random walk through mathematics -- mostly through the random part.
Blog Archive
-
►
2011
(46)
- December (3)
- November (3)
- October (1)
- September (2)
- August (6)
- July (1)
- June (2)
- May (3)
- April (5)
- March (8)
- February (10)
- January (2)
-
▼
2009
(122)
- December (3)
- October (2)
- September (7)
- August (5)
- July (9)
- June (7)
- May (6)
- April (7)
- March (18)
- February (27)
- January (31)
Contributors
Other blogs
- An American Physics Student in England
- Anarchaia
- Arcadian Functor
- Ars Mathematica
- Brown Sharpie
- Casting Out Nines
- Confessions of a Mathematician
- Data Mining: Text Mining, Visualization and Social Media
- Freakonomics
- Game Theorist
- Good Math, Bad Math
- Gooseania
- Gowers's Weblog
- http://mathnotations.blogspot.com
- Information Aesthetics
- Information Processing
- Junk Charts
- Language Log
- Learning Curves
- Machine Learning (Theory)
- Math Notations
- MathTrek
- Science After Sunclipse
- Scientific Curiosity
- SciTalks
- Secret Blogging Seminar
- Sentient Developments
- Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
- Statistics Consulting Blog
- Terence Tao's blog
- The Everything Seminar
- The Narrow Road
- The Unapologetic Mathematician
- The Universe of Discourse
- Vlorbik on Math Ed
- WebDiarios de Motocicleta
- Wingie
- Wolfram Blog
- WSJ.com: The Numbers Guy
5 comments:
I don't know if you've seen this paper, but they make the case that it's actually the lognormal distribution that's ubiquitous in primary experimental data. In biology at least, I think it makes sense, since most features are generated by growth processes where errors tend to have multiplicative rather than additive effects.
Mike,
I hadn't seen that, and lack the time to read it right now, but thanks for the pointer. The central point seems reasonable at first glance; when the variance is small the lognormal approaches the normal, so it's easy to get them confused.
I agree that it seems backward. You might reasonably think that lognormal means "log of a normal." But instead it means "distribution whose log is normal."
Although this is confusing, it is conventional in probability. A [foo][bar] distribution is one such that when you apply function [foo], you get distribution [bar]. For example, logit-normal is sometimes used for a distribution such that its logit is normal, i.e. the inverse logit of a normal distribution.
I'm guessing lognormal means that it looks like a normal distribution on log graph paper.
Anybody else remember log graph paper or am I dating myself.
It's the same pattern as log-convex. In general I feel like saying X is noun-adjective should mean that the noun of X is adjective, but I'm having trouble coming up with good real-world examples.
Does that pattern sound right to you when the noun is not the name of a function like log? For example, if someone were to coin the word "derivative-increasing", would you interpret it as nonnegative or convex? I'd definitely choose convex, but maybe it's just me.
Post a Comment