Talk:Markov's inequality

message: There needs to be some explanation of notation.
For example, in the equation:
: \Pr(|X| \geq a) \leq \frac{\textrm{E}(|X|)}{a}
what is |X|?  The absolute value of X?  The norm of X?  How is it different from just X?
Why isn't this page (at least the probability interpretation part) as clear as http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MarkovsInequality.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.173.131 (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation 

message: In the statement the general case appears before the private case of the probability space. 
I suggest putting the special case first and then go general, for two reasons: 
# Most readers of this article are only interested in the probability space case. 
# Consistency with the proofs section where the special case appears first.
Stangaa (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency in the General vs. Private Order 

message: Last year the interval [0, ∞) was changed to [0, ∞].  I feel that this is not a good change.
The first form specifies the non-negative real numbers; the second form includes the possibility that the function h can map from a real number to ∞.  If ∞ is in the range of h, and the preimage of ∞ has non-zero probability under the appropriate probability measure, then clearly E[h(X)] = ∞, which must be greater than any probability!
Most importantly, the latter version of the interval goes against the convention with which I am familiar (which is, of course, to use the former version.)
I have changed it back; if anyone would like to discuss this further please feel free!  Ben Cairns 01:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I've reinstated a proof I put here months ago, which someone removed. Michael Hardy 19:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Interval 

message: In the first general measure theoretic statement, it says that the bound is given by an integral of f. It should be |f|.
No idea who should be told to fix it, but it should be fixed... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.68.1.29 (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's a small error in the article 

message: The explanation of this inequality would benefit greatly from a diagram. Sanchom (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagrams 

message: The diagram seems incorrect to me. Is it the graph of a probability density function? If so, surely the region for which the probability is given an upper bound is a range from some point on the x axis off to the right of the diagram {eg. [a,∞)}
It is quite possible that I have not understood the diagram, as I am by no means an expert on the inequality. Even so, if I have misentrpreted it, I am certain others will have, and in this case, could furthur text be given to explain it, or an alternative diagram provided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.234.4.10 (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram Correctness 

message: This section is confusing because the "a bar" term is undefined, and I don't know how the formulas were derived.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.142.1.10 (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Intuitive" section under Proofs 

message: In the Section "Statement" the measure space and the random Variable are both introduced as $X$. This might be confusing to the reader.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guenterino (talk • contribs) 09:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconvenient notation