

As it's Friday ..
and I also really want to clean up help files and similar R documents,
both in R's own sources and in my new 'DPQ' CRAN package :
As a trained mathematician, I'm uneasy if a thing has
several easily confusable names, .. but as somewhat
humanistically educated person, I know that natural languages,
English in this case, are much more flexible than computer
languages or math...
Anyway, back to the question(s) .. which I had asked myself a
couple of months ago, and already remained slightly undecided:
The 0th (meta)question of course is
0. Is it worth using only one written form for the
χ²  distribution, e.g. "everywhere" in R?
The answer is not obvious, as already the first few words of the
(English) Wikipedia clearly convey:
The URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisquared_distributionand the main title therefore also
"Chisquared distribution"
Then it reads
> This article is about the mathematics of the chisquared
> distribution. For its uses in statistics, see chisquared
> test. For the music [...]
> In probability theory and statistics, the chisquare
> distribution (also chisquared or χ2distribution) with k
> degrees of freedom is the distribution of a sum of the squares
> of k independent standard normal random variables.
> The chisquare distribution is a special case of the gamma
> distribution and is one of the most widely used probability
> distributions in inferential statistics, notably in hypothesis
> testing [........]
> [........]
So, in title and 1st paragraph its "chisquared", but then
everywhere(?) the text used "chisquare".
Undoubtedly, Wilson & Hilferty (1931) has been an important
paper and they use "Chisquare" in the title;
also Johnson, Kotz & Balakrishnan (1995)
see R's help page ?pchisq use "Chisquare" in the title of
chapter 18 and then, diplomatically for chapter 29,
"Noncentral χ²Distributions" as title.
So it seems, that historically and using prestigious sources,
"chisquare" to dominate (notably if we do not count "χ²" as an
alternative).
Things look a bit different when I study R's sources; on one
hand, I find all 4 forms (s.Subject); then in the "R source
history", I see
$ svn log c11342

r11342  <....>  20001114 ...
Use `chisquared'.

which changed 16 (if I counted correctly) cases of 'chisquare' to 'chisquared'.
I have not found any Rcore internal (or public) reasoning about
that change, but had kept it in mind and often worked along that "goal".
As a consequence, "statistically" speaking, much of R's own use has been
standardized to use "chisquared"; but as I mentioned, I still
find all 4 variants even in "R base" package help files
(which of course I now could quite quickly change (using Emacs Mx grep, plus a script);
but
... "as it is Friday" ... I'm interested to hear what others
think, notably if you are native English (or "American" ;)
speaking and/or have some extra good knowledge on such
matters...
Martin Maechler
ETH Zurich
______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelpPLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.htmland provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.


Dear Martin,
Others struggle with this inconsistency as well; I found this discussion
useful:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1098138/chisquareorchisquaredDenes
On 10/18/19 2:51 PM, Martin Maechler wrote:
> As it's Friday ..
>
> and I also really want to clean up help files and similar R documents,
> both in R's own sources and in my new 'DPQ' CRAN package :
>
> As a trained mathematician, I'm uneasy if a thing has
> several easily confusable names, .. but as somewhat
> humanistically educated person, I know that natural languages,
> English in this case, are much more flexible than computer
> languages or math...
>
> Anyway, back to the question(s) .. which I had asked myself a
> couple of months ago, and already remained slightly undecided:
>
> The 0th (meta)question of course is
>
> 0. Is it worth using only one written form for the
> χ²  distribution, e.g. "everywhere" in R?
>
> The answer is not obvious, as already the first few words of the
> (English) Wikipedia clearly convey:
>
> The URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisquared_distribution> and the main title therefore also
> "Chisquared distribution"
>
> Then it reads
>
>> This article is about the mathematics of the chisquared
>> distribution. For its uses in statistics, see chisquared
>> test. For the music [...]
>
>> In probability theory and statistics, the chisquare
>> distribution (also chisquared or χ2distribution) with k
>> degrees of freedom is the distribution of a sum of the squares
>> of k independent standard normal random variables.
>
>> The chisquare distribution is a special case of the gamma
>> distribution and is one of the most widely used probability
>> distributions in inferential statistics, notably in hypothesis
>> testing [........]
>> [........]
>
> So, in title and 1st paragraph its "chisquared", but then
> everywhere(?) the text used "chisquare".
>
> Undoubtedly, Wilson & Hilferty (1931) has been an important
> paper and they use "Chisquare" in the title;
> also Johnson, Kotz & Balakrishnan (1995)
> see R's help page ?pchisq use "Chisquare" in the title of
> chapter 18 and then, diplomatically for chapter 29,
> "Noncentral χ²Distributions" as title.
>
> So it seems, that historically and using prestigious sources,
> "chisquare" to dominate (notably if we do not count "χ²" as an
> alternative).
>
> Things look a bit different when I study R's sources; on one
> hand, I find all 4 forms (s.Subject); then in the "R source
> history", I see
>
> $ svn log c11342
> 
> r11342  <....>  20001114 ...
>
> Use `chisquared'.
> 
>
> which changed 16 (if I counted correctly) cases of 'chisquare' to 'chisquared'.
>
> I have not found any Rcore internal (or public) reasoning about
> that change, but had kept it in mind and often worked along that "goal".
>
> As a consequence, "statistically" speaking, much of R's own use has been
> standardized to use "chisquared"; but as I mentioned, I still
> find all 4 variants even in "R base" package help files
> (which of course I now could quite quickly change (using Emacs Mx grep, plus a script);
> but
>
> ... "as it is Friday" ... I'm interested to hear what others
> think, notably if you are native English (or "American" ;)
> speaking and/or have some extra good knowledge on such
> matters...
>
> Martin Maechler
> ETH Zurich
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelp> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.html> and provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.
>
______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelpPLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.htmland provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.


I have the vague impression that "chisquared" is more common in British
usage and "chisquare" more common in American usage. I'm pretty sure
that either is acceptable, although "chisquared" sounds much better to
my ear.
Of course within a given document (or collection of related documents)
consistency is mandatory.
cheers,
Rolf
On 19/10/19 1:51 AM, Martin Maechler wrote:
> As it's Friday ..
>
> and I also really want to clean up help files and similar R documents,
> both in R's own sources and in my new 'DPQ' CRAN package :
>
> As a trained mathematician, I'm uneasy if a thing has
> several easily confusable names, .. but as somewhat
> humanistically educated person, I know that natural languages,
> English in this case, are much more flexible than computer
> languages or math...
>
> Anyway, back to the question(s) .. which I had asked myself a
> couple of months ago, and already remained slightly undecided:
>
> The 0th (meta)question of course is
>
> 0. Is it worth using only one written form for the
> χ²  distribution, e.g. "everywhere" in R?
>
> The answer is not obvious, as already the first few words of the
> (English) Wikipedia clearly convey:
>
> The URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisquared_distribution> and the main title therefore also
> "Chisquared distribution"
>
> Then it reads
>
>> This article is about the mathematics of the chisquared
>> distribution. For its uses in statistics, see chisquared
>> test. For the music [...]
>
>> In probability theory and statistics, the chisquare
>> distribution (also chisquared or χ2distribution) with k
>> degrees of freedom is the distribution of a sum of the squares
>> of k independent standard normal random variables.
>
>> The chisquare distribution is a special case of the gamma
>> distribution and is one of the most widely used probability
>> distributions in inferential statistics, notably in hypothesis
>> testing [........]
>> [........]
>
> So, in title and 1st paragraph its "chisquared", but then
> everywhere(?) the text used "chisquare".
>
> Undoubtedly, Wilson & Hilferty (1931) has been an important
> paper and they use "Chisquare" in the title;
> also Johnson, Kotz & Balakrishnan (1995)
> see R's help page ?pchisq use "Chisquare" in the title of
> chapter 18 and then, diplomatically for chapter 29,
> "Noncentral χ²Distributions" as title.
>
> So it seems, that historically and using prestigious sources,
> "chisquare" to dominate (notably if we do not count "χ²" as an
> alternative).
>
> Things look a bit different when I study R's sources; on one
> hand, I find all 4 forms (s.Subject); then in the "R source
> history", I see
>
> $ svn log c11342
> 
> r11342  <....>  20001114 ...
>
> Use `chisquared'.
> 
>
> which changed 16 (if I counted correctly) cases of 'chisquare' to 'chisquared'.
>
> I have not found any Rcore internal (or public) reasoning about
> that change, but had kept it in mind and often worked along that "goal".
>
> As a consequence, "statistically" speaking, much of R's own use has been
> standardized to use "chisquared"; but as I mentioned, I still
> find all 4 variants even in "R base" package help files
> (which of course I now could quite quickly change (using Emacs Mx grep, plus a script);
> but
>
> ... "as it is Friday" ... I'm interested to hear what others
> think, notably if you are native English (or "American" ;)
> speaking and/or have some extra good knowledge on such
> matters...
______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelpPLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.htmland provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.


I have thought about this one myself, and just reading the posts and
links has afforded me a more informed viewpoint. My guess is that it
boils down to a contest between mathematics and prosody. To speakers
of English, "square" in the mathematical sense implies the active
form such as "I square this number". When our focus is on the number
itself, it is usually expressed as "This number has been squared". My
suggestion is that while "chisquare" may be more correct in the
derivation of the statistic, "chisquared" is more consistent with
colloquial usage in using the passive form. It may also avoid
confusion with the use of "square" as a noun, in which the preceding
word is often an adjective (e.g. "a red square").
Jim
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 12:19 AM Dénes Tóth < [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Dear Martin,
>
> Others struggle with this inconsistency as well; I found this discussion
> useful:
> https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1098138/chisquareorchisquared>
> Denes
>
>
> On 10/18/19 2:51 PM, Martin Maechler wrote:
> > As it's Friday ..
> >
> > and I also really want to clean up help files and similar R documents,
> > both in R's own sources and in my new 'DPQ' CRAN package :
> >
> > As a trained mathematician, I'm uneasy if a thing has
> > several easily confusable names, .. but as somewhat
> > humanistically educated person, I know that natural languages,
> > English in this case, are much more flexible than computer
> > languages or math...
> >
> > Anyway, back to the question(s) .. which I had asked myself a
> > couple of months ago, and already remained slightly undecided:
> >
> > The 0th (meta)question of course is
> >
> > 0. Is it worth using only one written form for the
> > χ²  distribution, e.g. "everywhere" in R?
> >
> > The answer is not obvious, as already the first few words of the
> > (English) Wikipedia clearly convey:
> >
> > The URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisquared_distribution> > and the main title therefore also
> > "Chisquared distribution"
> >
> > Then it reads
> >
> >> This article is about the mathematics of the chisquared
> >> distribution. For its uses in statistics, see chisquared
> >> test. For the music [...]
> >
> >> In probability theory and statistics, the chisquare
> >> distribution (also chisquared or χ2distribution) with k
> >> degrees of freedom is the distribution of a sum of the squares
> >> of k independent standard normal random variables.
> >
> >> The chisquare distribution is a special case of the gamma
> >> distribution and is one of the most widely used probability
> >> distributions in inferential statistics, notably in hypothesis
> >> testing [........]
> >> [........]
> >
> > So, in title and 1st paragraph its "chisquared", but then
> > everywhere(?) the text used "chisquare".
> >
> > Undoubtedly, Wilson & Hilferty (1931) has been an important
> > paper and they use "Chisquare" in the title;
> > also Johnson, Kotz & Balakrishnan (1995)
> > see R's help page ?pchisq use "Chisquare" in the title of
> > chapter 18 and then, diplomatically for chapter 29,
> > "Noncentral χ²Distributions" as title.
> >
> > So it seems, that historically and using prestigious sources,
> > "chisquare" to dominate (notably if we do not count "χ²" as an
> > alternative).
> >
> > Things look a bit different when I study R's sources; on one
> > hand, I find all 4 forms (s.Subject); then in the "R source
> > history", I see
> >
> > $ svn log c11342
> > 
> > r11342  <....>  20001114 ...
> >
> > Use `chisquared'.
> > 
> >
> > which changed 16 (if I counted correctly) cases of 'chisquare' to 'chisquared'.
> >
> > I have not found any Rcore internal (or public) reasoning about
> > that change, but had kept it in mind and often worked along that "goal".
> >
> > As a consequence, "statistically" speaking, much of R's own use has been
> > standardized to use "chisquared"; but as I mentioned, I still
> > find all 4 variants even in "R base" package help files
> > (which of course I now could quite quickly change (using Emacs Mx grep, plus a script);
> > but
> >
> > ... "as it is Friday" ... I'm interested to hear what others
> > think, notably if you are native English (or "American" ;)
> > speaking and/or have some extra good knowledge on such
> > matters...
> >
> > Martin Maechler
> > ETH Zurich
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > [hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelp> > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.html> > and provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.
> >
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelp> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.html> and provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.
______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelpPLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.htmland provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.


On Sat, 19 Oct 2019, Jim Lemon wrote:
> My suggestion is that while "chisquare" may be more correct in the
> derivation of the statistic, "chisquared" is more consistent with
> colloquial usage in using the passive form.
Jim,
This is a cogent suggestion that's pragmatic and defensible.
Thank you,
Rich
______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelpPLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.htmland provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.


What a delightful question. Bill Cochran discussed this in class
one day about 50 years ago. He said the British usage (which I think
he said was chisquared,
as is consistent with the other memories in this thread)
is what he learned and previously used. But he had been in the US for
so long that he was now using
the American preference (chisquare).
Rich
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 8:51 AM Martin Maechler
< [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> As it's Friday ..
>
> and I also really want to clean up help files and similar R documents,
> both in R's own sources and in my new 'DPQ' CRAN package :
>
> As a trained mathematician, I'm uneasy if a thing has
> several easily confusable names, .. but as somewhat
> humanistically educated person, I know that natural languages,
> English in this case, are much more flexible than computer
> languages or math...
>
> Anyway, back to the question(s) .. which I had asked myself a
> couple of months ago, and already remained slightly undecided:
>
> The 0th (meta)question of course is
>
> 0. Is it worth using only one written form for the
> χ²  distribution, e.g. "everywhere" in R?
>
> The answer is not obvious, as already the first few words of the
> (English) Wikipedia clearly convey:
>
> The URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisquared_distribution> and the main title therefore also
> "Chisquared distribution"
>
> Then it reads
>
> > This article is about the mathematics of the chisquared
> > distribution. For its uses in statistics, see chisquared
> > test. For the music [...]
>
> > In probability theory and statistics, the chisquare
> > distribution (also chisquared or χ2distribution) with k
> > degrees of freedom is the distribution of a sum of the squares
> > of k independent standard normal random variables.
>
> > The chisquare distribution is a special case of the gamma
> > distribution and is one of the most widely used probability
> > distributions in inferential statistics, notably in hypothesis
> > testing [........]
> > [........]
>
> So, in title and 1st paragraph its "chisquared", but then
> everywhere(?) the text used "chisquare".
>
> Undoubtedly, Wilson & Hilferty (1931) has been an important
> paper and they use "Chisquare" in the title;
> also Johnson, Kotz & Balakrishnan (1995)
> see R's help page ?pchisq use "Chisquare" in the title of
> chapter 18 and then, diplomatically for chapter 29,
> "Noncentral χ²Distributions" as title.
>
> So it seems, that historically and using prestigious sources,
> "chisquare" to dominate (notably if we do not count "χ²" as an
> alternative).
>
> Things look a bit different when I study R's sources; on one
> hand, I find all 4 forms (s.Subject); then in the "R source
> history", I see
>
> $ svn log c11342
> 
> r11342  <....>  20001114 ...
>
> Use `chisquared'.
> 
>
> which changed 16 (if I counted correctly) cases of 'chisquare' to 'chisquared'.
>
> I have not found any Rcore internal (or public) reasoning about
> that change, but had kept it in mind and often worked along that "goal".
>
> As a consequence, "statistically" speaking, much of R's own use has been
> standardized to use "chisquared"; but as I mentioned, I still
> find all 4 variants even in "R base" package help files
> (which of course I now could quite quickly change (using Emacs Mx grep, plus a script);
> but
>
> ... "as it is Friday" ... I'm interested to hear what others
> think, notably if you are native English (or "American" ;)
> speaking and/or have some extra good knowledge on such
> matters...
>
> Martin Maechler
> ETH Zurich
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelp> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.html> and provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.
______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelpPLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.htmland provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.


oh my...
I'd like to see the statistics on it before jumping to a conclusion that
the American preference is "chisquare" and the British preference is
"chisquared". I don't see that at all.

In keeping with the pronunciation of x^2 and 3^2, maybe "chisquared" makes
the most sense,.
The "chisquare"? Because the iterated dentals in "chisquared
distribution" and "chisquared test" are a little cumbersome to pronounce,
an even slightly lazy pronunciation would sound like "chisquare
distribution" and "chisquare test". There's no need to write it that way
though.
Dan
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 2:28 PM Richard M. Heiberger < [hidden email]> wrote:
> What a delightful question. Bill Cochran discussed this in class
> one day about 50 years ago. He said the British usage (which I think
> he said was chisquared,
> as is consistent with the other memories in this thread)
> is what he learned and previously used. But he had been in the US for
> so long that he was now using
> the American preference (chisquare).
>
> Rich
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 8:51 AM Martin Maechler
> < [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > As it's Friday ..
> >
> > and I also really want to clean up help files and similar R documents,
> > both in R's own sources and in my new 'DPQ' CRAN package :
> >
> > As a trained mathematician, I'm uneasy if a thing has
> > several easily confusable names, .. but as somewhat
> > humanistically educated person, I know that natural languages,
> > English in this case, are much more flexible than computer
> > languages or math...
> >
> > Anyway, back to the question(s) .. which I had asked myself a
> > couple of months ago, and already remained slightly undecided:
> >
> > The 0th (meta)question of course is
> >
> > 0. Is it worth using only one written form for the
> > χ²  distribution, e.g. "everywhere" in R?
> >
> > The answer is not obvious, as already the first few words of the
> > (English) Wikipedia clearly convey:
> >
> > The URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisquared_distribution> > and the main title therefore also
> > "Chisquared distribution"
> >
> > Then it reads
> >
> > > This article is about the mathematics of the chisquared
> > > distribution. For its uses in statistics, see chisquared
> > > test. For the music [...]
> >
> > > In probability theory and statistics, the chisquare
> > > distribution (also chisquared or χ2distribution) with k
> > > degrees of freedom is the distribution of a sum of the squares
> > > of k independent standard normal random variables.
> >
> > > The chisquare distribution is a special case of the gamma
> > > distribution and is one of the most widely used probability
> > > distributions in inferential statistics, notably in hypothesis
> > > testing [........]
> > > [........]
> >
> > So, in title and 1st paragraph its "chisquared", but then
> > everywhere(?) the text used "chisquare".
> >
> > Undoubtedly, Wilson & Hilferty (1931) has been an important
> > paper and they use "Chisquare" in the title;
> > also Johnson, Kotz & Balakrishnan (1995)
> > see R's help page ?pchisq use "Chisquare" in the title of
> > chapter 18 and then, diplomatically for chapter 29,
> > "Noncentral χ²Distributions" as title.
> >
> > So it seems, that historically and using prestigious sources,
> > "chisquare" to dominate (notably if we do not count "χ²" as an
> > alternative).
> >
> > Things look a bit different when I study R's sources; on one
> > hand, I find all 4 forms (s.Subject); then in the "R source
> > history", I see
> >
> > $ svn log c11342
> >
> 
> > r11342  <....>  20001114 ...
> >
> > Use `chisquared'.
> >
> 
> >
> > which changed 16 (if I counted correctly) cases of 'chisquare' to
> 'chisquared'.
> >
> > I have not found any Rcore internal (or public) reasoning about
> > that change, but had kept it in mind and often worked along that "goal".
> >
> > As a consequence, "statistically" speaking, much of R's own use has been
> > standardized to use "chisquared"; but as I mentioned, I still
> > find all 4 variants even in "R base" package help files
> > (which of course I now could quite quickly change (using Emacs Mx
> grep, plus a script);
> > but
> >
> > ... "as it is Friday" ... I'm interested to hear what others
> > think, notably if you are native English (or "American" ;)
> > speaking and/or have some extra good knowledge on such
> > matters...
> >
> > Martin Maechler
> > ETH Zurich
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > [hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelp> > PLEASE do read the posting guide
> http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.html> > and provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelp> PLEASE do read the posting guide
> http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.html> and provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.
>

Dan Dalthorp, PhD
USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center
Forest Sciences Lab, Rm 311
3200 SW Jefferson Way
Corvallis, OR 97331
ph: 5417500953
[hidden email]
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelpPLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.htmland provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.


Pearson's original paper uses both \chi and \chi^2 frequently but
never spells out how to pronounce the latter.
Try another question: when talking about \sigma^2 do you say
"sigmasquare" (which sounds rather odd) or "sigmasquared" (which
sounds more natural)? If you say sigmasquare, say chisquare. If
you say sigmasquared, say chisquared.
For what it's worth, the multu=ivolume "Encyclopedia of Statistical
Sciences", 2nd edition, uses both variants.
And so does Kendal & Stuart, volume 2, 1961, although "squared" seems
to predominate.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 11:27, Dalthorp, Daniel via Rhelp
< [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> oh my...
>
> I'd like to see the statistics on it before jumping to a conclusion that
> the American preference is "chisquare" and the British preference is
> "chisquared". I don't see that at all.
>
> 
> In keeping with the pronunciation of x^2 and 3^2, maybe "chisquared" makes
> the most sense,.
>
> The "chisquare"? Because the iterated dentals in "chisquared
> distribution" and "chisquared test" are a little cumbersome to pronounce,
> an even slightly lazy pronunciation would sound like "chisquare
> distribution" and "chisquare test". There's no need to write it that way
> though.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 2:28 PM Richard M. Heiberger < [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > What a delightful question. Bill Cochran discussed this in class
> > one day about 50 years ago. He said the British usage (which I think
> > he said was chisquared,
> > as is consistent with the other memories in this thread)
> > is what he learned and previously used. But he had been in the US for
> > so long that he was now using
> > the American preference (chisquare).
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 8:51 AM Martin Maechler
> > < [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > As it's Friday ..
> > >
> > > and I also really want to clean up help files and similar R documents,
> > > both in R's own sources and in my new 'DPQ' CRAN package :
> > >
> > > As a trained mathematician, I'm uneasy if a thing has
> > > several easily confusable names, .. but as somewhat
> > > humanistically educated person, I know that natural languages,
> > > English in this case, are much more flexible than computer
> > > languages or math...
> > >
> > > Anyway, back to the question(s) .. which I had asked myself a
> > > couple of months ago, and already remained slightly undecided:
> > >
> > > The 0th (meta)question of course is
> > >
> > > 0. Is it worth using only one written form for the
> > > χ²  distribution, e.g. "everywhere" in R?
> > >
> > > The answer is not obvious, as already the first few words of the
> > > (English) Wikipedia clearly convey:
> > >
> > > The URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisquared_distribution> > > and the main title therefore also
> > > "Chisquared distribution"
> > >
> > > Then it reads
> > >
> > > > This article is about the mathematics of the chisquared
> > > > distribution. For its uses in statistics, see chisquared
> > > > test. For the music [...]
> > >
> > > > In probability theory and statistics, the chisquare
> > > > distribution (also chisquared or χ2distribution) with k
> > > > degrees of freedom is the distribution of a sum of the squares
> > > > of k independent standard normal random variables.
> > >
> > > > The chisquare distribution is a special case of the gamma
> > > > distribution and is one of the most widely used probability
> > > > distributions in inferential statistics, notably in hypothesis
> > > > testing [........]
> > > > [........]
> > >
> > > So, in title and 1st paragraph its "chisquared", but then
> > > everywhere(?) the text used "chisquare".
> > >
> > > Undoubtedly, Wilson & Hilferty (1931) has been an important
> > > paper and they use "Chisquare" in the title;
> > > also Johnson, Kotz & Balakrishnan (1995)
> > > see R's help page ?pchisq use "Chisquare" in the title of
> > > chapter 18 and then, diplomatically for chapter 29,
> > > "Noncentral χ²Distributions" as title.
> > >
> > > So it seems, that historically and using prestigious sources,
> > > "chisquare" to dominate (notably if we do not count "χ²" as an
> > > alternative).
> > >
> > > Things look a bit different when I study R's sources; on one
> > > hand, I find all 4 forms (s.Subject); then in the "R source
> > > history", I see
> > >
> > > $ svn log c11342
> > >
> > 
> > > r11342  <....>  20001114 ...
> > >
> > > Use `chisquared'.
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > > which changed 16 (if I counted correctly) cases of 'chisquare' to
> > 'chisquared'.
> > >
> > > I have not found any Rcore internal (or public) reasoning about
> > > that change, but had kept it in mind and often worked along that "goal".
> > >
> > > As a consequence, "statistically" speaking, much of R's own use has been
> > > standardized to use "chisquared"; but as I mentioned, I still
> > > find all 4 variants even in "R base" package help files
> > > (which of course I now could quite quickly change (using Emacs Mx
> > grep, plus a script);
> > > but
> > >
> > > ... "as it is Friday" ... I'm interested to hear what others
> > > think, notably if you are native English (or "American" ;)
> > > speaking and/or have some extra good knowledge on such
> > > matters...
> > >
> > > Martin Maechler
> > > ETH Zurich
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________
> > > [hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
> > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelp> > > PLEASE do read the posting guide
> > http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.html> > > and provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > [hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelp> > PLEASE do read the posting guide
> > http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.html> > and provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.
> >
>
>
> 
> Dan Dalthorp, PhD
> USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center
> Forest Sciences Lab, Rm 311
> 3200 SW Jefferson Way
> Corvallis, OR 97331
> ph: 5417500953
> [hidden email]
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelp> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.html> and provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.
______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelpPLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.htmland provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.


In reply to this post by R help mailing list2
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 15:25:59 0700
"Dalthorp, Daniel via Rhelp" < [hidden email]> wrote:
> I'd like to see the statistics on it before jumping to a conclusion
> that the American preference is "chisquare" and the British
> preference is "chisquared".
One way to get some data on this would be to count Scopus hits for
various usages in articles with different affiliations, with a query
like this:
{<usage #1>}
AND PUBYEAR > 1980
AND AFFILCOUNTRY(<country #1>)
AND NOT (
AFFILCOUNTRY(<country #2>)
OR {<usage #2>} OR {<usage #3>} OR {<usage #4>}
)
The year cutoff is here to show only the "modern usage" (the trends
look the same whether I leave it in or not). Intersections (papers with
authors from both countries and/or using more than one form) are a
minority and don't seem to reverse any trends, either. Here are the
results:
UK US
chisquare 4666 30159
chisquared 1374 4798
chi square 769 3844
chi squared 142 197
"chisquare" seems to be the most popular form.

Best regards,
Ivan
______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelpPLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.htmland provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.


Interesting!
Both UK and US show quite a bit more "square" than "squared" in your
sample, with maybe an even stronger tendency for "square" in US than in UK.
I like "squared" better because it fits better with standard English
pronunciation of, say, \sigma^2 or x^2 or r^2.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:46 AM Ivan Krylov < [hidden email]> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 15:25:59 0700
> "Dalthorp, Daniel via Rhelp" < [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to see the statistics on it before jumping to a conclusion
> > that the American preference is "chisquare" and the British
> > preference is "chisquared".
>
> One way to get some data on this would be to count Scopus hits for
> various usages in articles with different affiliations, with a query
> like this:
>
> {<usage #1>}
> AND PUBYEAR > 1980
> AND AFFILCOUNTRY(<country #1>)
> AND NOT (
> AFFILCOUNTRY(<country #2>)
> OR {<usage #2>} OR {<usage #3>} OR {<usage #4>}
> )
>
> The year cutoff is here to show only the "modern usage" (the trends
> look the same whether I leave it in or not). Intersections (papers with
> authors from both countries and/or using more than one form) are a
> minority and don't seem to reverse any trends, either. Here are the
> results:
>
> UK US
> chisquare 4666 30159
> chisquared 1374 4798
> chi square 769 3844
> chi squared 142 197
>
> "chisquare" seems to be the most popular form.
>
> 
> Best regards,
> Ivan
>

Dan Dalthorp, PhD
USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center
Forest Sciences Lab, Rm 311
3200 SW Jefferson Way
Corvallis, OR 97331
ph: 5417500953
[hidden email]
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list  To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/rhelpPLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.Rproject.org/postingguide.htmland provide commented, minimal, selfcontained, reproducible code.

