Talk:Hurst exponent

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Note needs to be integrated into article[edit]

there is a note added to the bottom that someone needs to integrate into the body of the article - i unfortunately don't know enough about the subject to do that. 62.168.182.203 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pink noise[edit]

the page says pink noise has an H of zero; can someone confirm? I don't know enough about the subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.182.203 (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed notation and imprecise language[edit]

This article certainly is a mess, with mixed notation and much imprecise language. Also some references are repeated trice! need much cleanup and rewriting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjetil1001 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formula needs reference[edit]

No reference given for formula related Hurst exponent to Fractal dimension. I know of at least one. However the forumla does depend on the underlying process and isn't necessarily D = 2-H. Needs these caveats stated explicitly 137.205.234.29 (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive jargon[edit]

Wikipedia is supposed to be a general reference encyclopedia, not a technical manual. Time & time again, particularly with math articles it seems, some undergrad or post-grad victimizes an article with a snooty disrespect for the common reader by too-terse jargon that is simply not accessible to those who would otherwise stand to most benefit from reading such an article. Seriously...who would derive any benefit from reading this article such as it is now written?

What I'm actually calling for is making this article (and a host of others) smarter by using more communicative & visual language rather than lapsing into "I Jargon, king of the domain experts" language that helps no one. Consider your audience, people...! --2602:306:BC24:8C00:1928:CA58:3663:D3A (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]