5 ms·

does this work for consecutive integers that don't start from 1?

• Vraxx 11y ago
  It seems that it would trivially work if you knew the number that you start from, you'd just be shifting the uniform distribution (and subtracting whatever number it started from to get the overall estimate). It does seem to be a harder problem if are given that they do not start at 1, but that they are consecutive integers. I imagine you might do a similar sort of statistical estimate on the beginning of the range as well as the end of the range. This introduces more uncertainty, but I see no reason why this wouldn't work
  • boxy310 11y ago
    There's uncertainty introduced by the idea that you don't know how big that range is supposed to be. Technically the M/n figure should be (M-L)/n, where L is the sample minimum observed, and the estimated population minimum would be represented by L + (M-L)/n - 2 [1]. [1] two degrees of freedom should be lost due to estimating both M and L, thus subtracting 2.