Is Normal(mean, variance) mod x still a normal distribution?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
$begingroup$
Is the following distribution a still normal one?
The range of values is constrained to hard limits $ {0, 255} $. And it's generated by $ mathcal{N}(mu, sigma^2) operatorname{mod} 256 + 128^{dagger} $. So it's not that I'm simply truncating a normal, but folding it back into itself. Consequently the probability is never asymptotic to 0.
Normal, or is there a more appropriate term for it?
$dagger$ The +128 is just to centre the peak otherwise it looks silly as $mu = 0$. $sigma sim 12; < 20$. I expect that $mu$ can be ignored for the purposes of classification.
In detail, it's a plot of 128 + (sample1 - sample2) & 0xff. I wouldn't fixate on the centring too much as there's some weird +/- stuff to do with computer networking and transmission of unsigned bytes.
distributions
asked Apr 21 at 13:34
Paul UszakPaul Uszak
199116
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is the following distribution a still normal one?
The range of values is constrained to hard limits $ {0, 255} $. And it's generated by $ mathcal{N}(mu, sigma^2) operatorname{mod} 256 + 128^{dagger} $. So it's not that I'm simply truncating a normal, but folding it back into itself. Consequently the probability is never asymptotic to 0.
Normal, or is there a more appropriate term for it?
$dagger$ The +128 is just to centre the peak otherwise it looks silly as $mu = 0$. $sigma sim 12; < 20$. I expect that $mu$ can be ignored for the purposes of classification.
In detail, it's a plot of 128 + (sample1 - sample2) & 0xff. I wouldn't fixate on the centring too much as there's some weird +/- stuff to do with computer networking and transmission of unsigned bytes.
distributions
asked Apr 21 at 13:34
Paul UszakPaul Uszak
199116
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Can you give the values of $mu$ and $sigma^2$? Also, there seems to be something off: the result of a $text{mod} 256$ operation will be between 0 and 256, so the result after adding 128 should be between 126 and 384, unlike your picture. Did you simply not add 128 before plotting?
$endgroup$
– Stephan Kolassa
Apr 21 at 13:54
$begingroup$
I don't think it would hold for any $mu$ and $sigma$, and for some paramters it would just like subtracting a value.
$endgroup$
– Lerner Zhang
Apr 21 at 14:00
$begingroup$
Seems related to the wrapped normal distribution also discussed here
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 18:54
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is the following distribution a still normal one?
The range of values is constrained to hard limits $ {0, 255} $. And it's generated by $ mathcal{N}(mu, sigma^2) operatorname{mod} 256 + 128^{dagger} $. So it's not that I'm simply truncating a normal, but folding it back into itself. Consequently the probability is never asymptotic to 0.
Normal, or is there a more appropriate term for it?
$dagger$ The +128 is just to centre the peak otherwise it looks silly as $mu = 0$. $sigma sim 12; < 20$. I expect that $mu$ can be ignored for the purposes of classification.
In detail, it's a plot of 128 + (sample1 - sample2) & 0xff. I wouldn't fixate on the centring too much as there's some weird +/- stuff to do with computer networking and transmission of unsigned bytes.
distributions
asked Apr 21 at 13:34
Paul UszakPaul Uszak
199116
$endgroup$
Is the following distribution a still normal one?
The range of values is constrained to hard limits $ {0, 255} $. And it's generated by $ mathcal{N}(mu, sigma^2) operatorname{mod} 256 + 128^{dagger} $. So it's not that I'm simply truncating a normal, but folding it back into itself. Consequently the probability is never asymptotic to 0.
Normal, or is there a more appropriate term for it?
$dagger$ The +128 is just to centre the peak otherwise it looks silly as $mu = 0$. $sigma sim 12; < 20$. I expect that $mu$ can be ignored for the purposes of classification.
In detail, it's a plot of 128 + (sample1 - sample2) & 0xff. I wouldn't fixate on the centring too much as there's some weird +/- stuff to do with computer networking and transmission of unsigned bytes.
distributions
distributions
asked Apr 21 at 13:34
Paul UszakPaul Uszak
199116
asked Apr 21 at 13:34
Paul UszakPaul Uszak
199116
edited Apr 21 at 14:21
Paul Uszak
asked Apr 21 at 13:34
Paul UszakPaul Uszak
199116
asked Apr 21 at 13:34
Paul UszakPaul Uszak
199116
asked Apr 21 at 13:34
Paul UszakPaul Uszak
199116
199116
1
$begingroup$
Can you give the values of $mu$ and $sigma^2$? Also, there seems to be something off: the result of a $text{mod} 256$ operation will be between 0 and 256, so the result after adding 128 should be between 126 and 384, unlike your picture. Did you simply not add 128 before plotting?
$endgroup$
– Stephan Kolassa
Apr 21 at 13:54
$begingroup$
I don't think it would hold for any $mu$ and $sigma$, and for some paramters it would just like subtracting a value.
$endgroup$
– Lerner Zhang
Apr 21 at 14:00
$begingroup$
Seems related to the wrapped normal distribution also discussed here
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 18:54
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Can you give the values of $mu$ and $sigma^2$? Also, there seems to be something off: the result of a $text{mod} 256$ operation will be between 0 and 256, so the result after adding 128 should be between 126 and 384, unlike your picture. Did you simply not add 128 before plotting?
$endgroup$
– Stephan Kolassa
Apr 21 at 13:54
$begingroup$
I don't think it would hold for any $mu$ and $sigma$, and for some paramters it would just like subtracting a value.
$endgroup$
– Lerner Zhang
Apr 21 at 14:00
$begingroup$
Seems related to the wrapped normal distribution also discussed here
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 18:54
1
1
$begingroup$
Can you give the values of $mu$ and $sigma^2$? Also, there seems to be something off: the result of a $text{mod} 256$ operation will be between 0 and 256, so the result after adding 128 should be between 126 and 384, unlike your picture. Did you simply not add 128 before plotting?
$endgroup$
– Stephan Kolassa
Apr 21 at 13:54
$begingroup$
Can you give the values of $mu$ and $sigma^2$? Also, there seems to be something off: the result of a $text{mod} 256$ operation will be between 0 and 256, so the result after adding 128 should be between 126 and 384, unlike your picture. Did you simply not add 128 before plotting?
$endgroup$
– Stephan Kolassa
Apr 21 at 13:54
$begingroup$
I don't think it would hold for any $mu$ and $sigma$, and for some paramters it would just like subtracting a value.
$endgroup$
– Lerner Zhang
Apr 21 at 14:00
$begingroup$
I don't think it would hold for any $mu$ and $sigma$, and for some paramters it would just like subtracting a value.
$endgroup$
– Lerner Zhang
Apr 21 at 14:00
$begingroup$
Seems related to the wrapped normal distribution also discussed here
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 18:54
$begingroup$
Seems related to the wrapped normal distribution also discussed here
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 18:54
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No, by definition your distribution is not normal. The normal distribution has unbounded support, yours doesn't. QED.
Often enough, we don't need a normal distribution, only one that is "normal enough". Your distribution may well be normal enough for whatever you want to use it for.
However, I don't think a normal distribution is really the best way to parameterize your data. Specifically, even playing around with the standard deviation, there doesn't seem to be a way to get the kurtosis your data exhibits:
Note how we either get all the mass over a much smaller part of the horizontal axis for small SDs, or get much more mass in the center of the distribution than in your picture for large SDs.
mu <- 128
ss <- c(5,10,20,40)
nn <- 1e7
par(mfrow=c(2,2),mai=c(.5,.5,.5,.1))
for ( ii in 1:4 ) {
set.seed(1)
hist(rnorm(nn,mu,ss[ii])%%256,col="grey",
freq=FALSE,xlim=c(0,256),xlab="",ylab="",main=paste("SD =",ss[ii]))
}
I also tried a $t$ distribution by varying the degrees of freedom, but that didn't look very good, either.
So, if your distribution is not normal enough for your purposes, you may want to look at something like a Pearson type VII distribution. If you truncate this using the modulo operator, it will again not be a Pearson VII strictly speaking, but it may again be "sufficiently Pearson VII".
answered Apr 21 at 14:19
Stephan KolassaStephan Kolassa
50.6k8103191
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I called it Normal as I assumed that '(sample - sample)' = Normal, even if 'sample' itself is not Normal. 'sample' actually looks more like log-Normal. Would that explain the kurtosis problem?
$endgroup$
– Paul Uszak
Apr 21 at 17:04
1
$begingroup$
Perhaps it could be normal in the wrapped distribution sense of directional statistics?
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 19:11
$begingroup$
That is possible. I'm afraid you have lost me with the sample, and its log-normality. Could you give a few more details?
$endgroup$
– Stephan Kolassa
Apr 21 at 20:05
$begingroup$
My understanding of it isn't fantastic (otherwise I'd post an answer) but I think the idea is that when you have a probability space with a sample set that is notRbut rather some cyclic group likeSO2or perhapsR mod 256, the mathematically accepted way to generalize any distribution onRto these spaces is to, well, do what the OP did and "identify" (via modulo) various samples as each other, summing the probabilities ad infinitum, like the wiki article describes:p_wrapped(x) = sum_over_all_k_in_N(p(x + k*r))whereris the mod value (so 256 for the OP)
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 21:26
$begingroup$
For the normal distribution you get this which I suspect retains most of the properties we'd hope for (though I'm not 100% sure). Like perhaps a central limit theorem for thismodspace?
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 21:29
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "65"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f404265%2fis-normalmean-variance-mod-x-still-a-normal-distribution%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No, by definition your distribution is not normal. The normal distribution has unbounded support, yours doesn't. QED.
Often enough, we don't need a normal distribution, only one that is "normal enough". Your distribution may well be normal enough for whatever you want to use it for.
However, I don't think a normal distribution is really the best way to parameterize your data. Specifically, even playing around with the standard deviation, there doesn't seem to be a way to get the kurtosis your data exhibits:
Note how we either get all the mass over a much smaller part of the horizontal axis for small SDs, or get much more mass in the center of the distribution than in your picture for large SDs.
mu <- 128
ss <- c(5,10,20,40)
nn <- 1e7
par(mfrow=c(2,2),mai=c(.5,.5,.5,.1))
for ( ii in 1:4 ) {
set.seed(1)
hist(rnorm(nn,mu,ss[ii])%%256,col="grey",
freq=FALSE,xlim=c(0,256),xlab="",ylab="",main=paste("SD =",ss[ii]))
}
I also tried a $t$ distribution by varying the degrees of freedom, but that didn't look very good, either.
So, if your distribution is not normal enough for your purposes, you may want to look at something like a Pearson type VII distribution. If you truncate this using the modulo operator, it will again not be a Pearson VII strictly speaking, but it may again be "sufficiently Pearson VII".
answered Apr 21 at 14:19
Stephan KolassaStephan Kolassa
50.6k8103191
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I called it Normal as I assumed that '(sample - sample)' = Normal, even if 'sample' itself is not Normal. 'sample' actually looks more like log-Normal. Would that explain the kurtosis problem?
$endgroup$
– Paul Uszak
Apr 21 at 17:04
1
$begingroup$
Perhaps it could be normal in the wrapped distribution sense of directional statistics?
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 19:11
$begingroup$
That is possible. I'm afraid you have lost me with the sample, and its log-normality. Could you give a few more details?
$endgroup$
– Stephan Kolassa
Apr 21 at 20:05
$begingroup$
My understanding of it isn't fantastic (otherwise I'd post an answer) but I think the idea is that when you have a probability space with a sample set that is notRbut rather some cyclic group likeSO2or perhapsR mod 256, the mathematically accepted way to generalize any distribution onRto these spaces is to, well, do what the OP did and "identify" (via modulo) various samples as each other, summing the probabilities ad infinitum, like the wiki article describes:p_wrapped(x) = sum_over_all_k_in_N(p(x + k*r))whereris the mod value (so 256 for the OP)
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 21:26
$begingroup$
For the normal distribution you get this which I suspect retains most of the properties we'd hope for (though I'm not 100% sure). Like perhaps a central limit theorem for thismodspace?
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 21:29
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, by definition your distribution is not normal. The normal distribution has unbounded support, yours doesn't. QED.
Often enough, we don't need a normal distribution, only one that is "normal enough". Your distribution may well be normal enough for whatever you want to use it for.
However, I don't think a normal distribution is really the best way to parameterize your data. Specifically, even playing around with the standard deviation, there doesn't seem to be a way to get the kurtosis your data exhibits:
Note how we either get all the mass over a much smaller part of the horizontal axis for small SDs, or get much more mass in the center of the distribution than in your picture for large SDs.
mu <- 128
ss <- c(5,10,20,40)
nn <- 1e7
par(mfrow=c(2,2),mai=c(.5,.5,.5,.1))
for ( ii in 1:4 ) {
set.seed(1)
hist(rnorm(nn,mu,ss[ii])%%256,col="grey",
freq=FALSE,xlim=c(0,256),xlab="",ylab="",main=paste("SD =",ss[ii]))
}
I also tried a $t$ distribution by varying the degrees of freedom, but that didn't look very good, either.
So, if your distribution is not normal enough for your purposes, you may want to look at something like a Pearson type VII distribution. If you truncate this using the modulo operator, it will again not be a Pearson VII strictly speaking, but it may again be "sufficiently Pearson VII".
answered Apr 21 at 14:19
Stephan KolassaStephan Kolassa
50.6k8103191
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I called it Normal as I assumed that '(sample - sample)' = Normal, even if 'sample' itself is not Normal. 'sample' actually looks more like log-Normal. Would that explain the kurtosis problem?
$endgroup$
– Paul Uszak
Apr 21 at 17:04
1
$begingroup$
Perhaps it could be normal in the wrapped distribution sense of directional statistics?
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 19:11
$begingroup$
That is possible. I'm afraid you have lost me with the sample, and its log-normality. Could you give a few more details?
$endgroup$
– Stephan Kolassa
Apr 21 at 20:05
$begingroup$
My understanding of it isn't fantastic (otherwise I'd post an answer) but I think the idea is that when you have a probability space with a sample set that is notRbut rather some cyclic group likeSO2or perhapsR mod 256, the mathematically accepted way to generalize any distribution onRto these spaces is to, well, do what the OP did and "identify" (via modulo) various samples as each other, summing the probabilities ad infinitum, like the wiki article describes:p_wrapped(x) = sum_over_all_k_in_N(p(x + k*r))whereris the mod value (so 256 for the OP)
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 21:26
$begingroup$
For the normal distribution you get this which I suspect retains most of the properties we'd hope for (though I'm not 100% sure). Like perhaps a central limit theorem for thismodspace?
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 21:29
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, by definition your distribution is not normal. The normal distribution has unbounded support, yours doesn't. QED.
Often enough, we don't need a normal distribution, only one that is "normal enough". Your distribution may well be normal enough for whatever you want to use it for.
However, I don't think a normal distribution is really the best way to parameterize your data. Specifically, even playing around with the standard deviation, there doesn't seem to be a way to get the kurtosis your data exhibits:
Note how we either get all the mass over a much smaller part of the horizontal axis for small SDs, or get much more mass in the center of the distribution than in your picture for large SDs.
mu <- 128
ss <- c(5,10,20,40)
nn <- 1e7
par(mfrow=c(2,2),mai=c(.5,.5,.5,.1))
for ( ii in 1:4 ) {
set.seed(1)
hist(rnorm(nn,mu,ss[ii])%%256,col="grey",
freq=FALSE,xlim=c(0,256),xlab="",ylab="",main=paste("SD =",ss[ii]))
}
I also tried a $t$ distribution by varying the degrees of freedom, but that didn't look very good, either.
So, if your distribution is not normal enough for your purposes, you may want to look at something like a Pearson type VII distribution. If you truncate this using the modulo operator, it will again not be a Pearson VII strictly speaking, but it may again be "sufficiently Pearson VII".
answered Apr 21 at 14:19
Stephan KolassaStephan Kolassa
50.6k8103191
$endgroup$
No, by definition your distribution is not normal. The normal distribution has unbounded support, yours doesn't. QED.
Often enough, we don't need a normal distribution, only one that is "normal enough". Your distribution may well be normal enough for whatever you want to use it for.
However, I don't think a normal distribution is really the best way to parameterize your data. Specifically, even playing around with the standard deviation, there doesn't seem to be a way to get the kurtosis your data exhibits:
Note how we either get all the mass over a much smaller part of the horizontal axis for small SDs, or get much more mass in the center of the distribution than in your picture for large SDs.
mu <- 128
ss <- c(5,10,20,40)
nn <- 1e7
par(mfrow=c(2,2),mai=c(.5,.5,.5,.1))
for ( ii in 1:4 ) {
set.seed(1)
hist(rnorm(nn,mu,ss[ii])%%256,col="grey",
freq=FALSE,xlim=c(0,256),xlab="",ylab="",main=paste("SD =",ss[ii]))
}
I also tried a $t$ distribution by varying the degrees of freedom, but that didn't look very good, either.
So, if your distribution is not normal enough for your purposes, you may want to look at something like a Pearson type VII distribution. If you truncate this using the modulo operator, it will again not be a Pearson VII strictly speaking, but it may again be "sufficiently Pearson VII".
answered Apr 21 at 14:19
Stephan KolassaStephan Kolassa
50.6k8103191
answered Apr 21 at 14:19
Stephan KolassaStephan Kolassa
50.6k8103191
answered Apr 21 at 14:19
Stephan KolassaStephan Kolassa
50.6k8103191
answered Apr 21 at 14:19
Stephan KolassaStephan Kolassa
50.6k8103191
50.6k8103191
$begingroup$
I called it Normal as I assumed that '(sample - sample)' = Normal, even if 'sample' itself is not Normal. 'sample' actually looks more like log-Normal. Would that explain the kurtosis problem?
$endgroup$
– Paul Uszak
Apr 21 at 17:04
1
$begingroup$
Perhaps it could be normal in the wrapped distribution sense of directional statistics?
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 19:11
$begingroup$
That is possible. I'm afraid you have lost me with the sample, and its log-normality. Could you give a few more details?
$endgroup$
– Stephan Kolassa
Apr 21 at 20:05
$begingroup$
My understanding of it isn't fantastic (otherwise I'd post an answer) but I think the idea is that when you have a probability space with a sample set that is notRbut rather some cyclic group likeSO2or perhapsR mod 256, the mathematically accepted way to generalize any distribution onRto these spaces is to, well, do what the OP did and "identify" (via modulo) various samples as each other, summing the probabilities ad infinitum, like the wiki article describes:p_wrapped(x) = sum_over_all_k_in_N(p(x + k*r))whereris the mod value (so 256 for the OP)
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 21:26
$begingroup$
For the normal distribution you get this which I suspect retains most of the properties we'd hope for (though I'm not 100% sure). Like perhaps a central limit theorem for thismodspace?
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 21:29
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I called it Normal as I assumed that '(sample - sample)' = Normal, even if 'sample' itself is not Normal. 'sample' actually looks more like log-Normal. Would that explain the kurtosis problem?
$endgroup$
– Paul Uszak
Apr 21 at 17:04
1
$begingroup$
Perhaps it could be normal in the wrapped distribution sense of directional statistics?
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 19:11
$begingroup$
That is possible. I'm afraid you have lost me with the sample, and its log-normality. Could you give a few more details?
$endgroup$
– Stephan Kolassa
Apr 21 at 20:05
$begingroup$
My understanding of it isn't fantastic (otherwise I'd post an answer) but I think the idea is that when you have a probability space with a sample set that is notRbut rather some cyclic group likeSO2or perhapsR mod 256, the mathematically accepted way to generalize any distribution onRto these spaces is to, well, do what the OP did and "identify" (via modulo) various samples as each other, summing the probabilities ad infinitum, like the wiki article describes:p_wrapped(x) = sum_over_all_k_in_N(p(x + k*r))whereris the mod value (so 256 for the OP)
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 21:26
$begingroup$
For the normal distribution you get this which I suspect retains most of the properties we'd hope for (though I'm not 100% sure). Like perhaps a central limit theorem for thismodspace?
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 21:29
$begingroup$
I called it Normal as I assumed that '(sample - sample)' = Normal, even if 'sample' itself is not Normal. 'sample' actually looks more like log-Normal. Would that explain the kurtosis problem?
$endgroup$
– Paul Uszak
Apr 21 at 17:04
$begingroup$
I called it Normal as I assumed that '(sample - sample)' = Normal, even if 'sample' itself is not Normal. 'sample' actually looks more like log-Normal. Would that explain the kurtosis problem?
$endgroup$
– Paul Uszak
Apr 21 at 17:04
1
1
$begingroup$
Perhaps it could be normal in the wrapped distribution sense of directional statistics?
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 19:11
$begingroup$
Perhaps it could be normal in the wrapped distribution sense of directional statistics?
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 19:11
$begingroup$
That is possible. I'm afraid you have lost me with the sample, and its log-normality. Could you give a few more details?
$endgroup$
– Stephan Kolassa
Apr 21 at 20:05
$begingroup$
That is possible. I'm afraid you have lost me with the sample, and its log-normality. Could you give a few more details?
$endgroup$
– Stephan Kolassa
Apr 21 at 20:05
$begingroup$
My understanding of it isn't fantastic (otherwise I'd post an answer) but I think the idea is that when you have a probability space with a sample set that is not
R but rather some cyclic group like SO2 or perhaps R mod 256, the mathematically accepted way to generalize any distribution on R to these spaces is to, well, do what the OP did and "identify" (via modulo) various samples as each other, summing the probabilities ad infinitum, like the wiki article describes: p_wrapped(x) = sum_over_all_k_in_N(p(x + k*r)) where r is the mod value (so 256 for the OP)$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 21:26
$begingroup$
My understanding of it isn't fantastic (otherwise I'd post an answer) but I think the idea is that when you have a probability space with a sample set that is not
R but rather some cyclic group like SO2 or perhaps R mod 256, the mathematically accepted way to generalize any distribution on R to these spaces is to, well, do what the OP did and "identify" (via modulo) various samples as each other, summing the probabilities ad infinitum, like the wiki article describes: p_wrapped(x) = sum_over_all_k_in_N(p(x + k*r)) where r is the mod value (so 256 for the OP)$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 21:26
$begingroup$
For the normal distribution you get this which I suspect retains most of the properties we'd hope for (though I'm not 100% sure). Like perhaps a central limit theorem for this
mod space?$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 21:29
$begingroup$
For the normal distribution you get this which I suspect retains most of the properties we'd hope for (though I'm not 100% sure). Like perhaps a central limit theorem for this
mod space?$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 21:29
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f404265%2fis-normalmean-variance-mod-x-still-a-normal-distribution%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Can you give the values of $mu$ and $sigma^2$? Also, there seems to be something off: the result of a $text{mod} 256$ operation will be between 0 and 256, so the result after adding 128 should be between 126 and 384, unlike your picture. Did you simply not add 128 before plotting?
$endgroup$
– Stephan Kolassa
Apr 21 at 13:54
$begingroup$
I don't think it would hold for any $mu$ and $sigma$, and for some paramters it would just like subtracting a value.
$endgroup$
– Lerner Zhang
Apr 21 at 14:00
$begingroup$
Seems related to the wrapped normal distribution also discussed here
$endgroup$
– jnez71
Apr 21 at 18:54