Talk:Stratonovich integral

Statistics Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Mathematics Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Finance bias[edit]

The section of advantages/disadvanteges of the Stratonovich integral displayed a strong bias towards application in financial math. I've edited this paragraph and added the applications of the Stratonovich integral in physics.

--193.175.8.13 (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not valid[edit]

the formula for the transition from Ito to Stratonovich integral is in general not valid. Please check e.g. Protter pg. 82 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgi.dimitroff (talk • contribs) 10:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, there is one sigma too many. I fixed that. Or do you mean something different? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The formula for the transition from Ito to Stratonovich integral is still invalid. The general formula however is correct. It might make sense to just give the conversion from an Ito SDE to the corresponding Stratonovich SDE instead. --137.205.192.27 (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change of definition[edit]

In the first section the definition is made with $\frac{X_{t_{i+1}}+X_{t_i}}{2}$ but then in the comparison with Ito integral it's ${X_{\frac{t_{i+1}+{t_i}}{2}$ used instead, without explanation.148.60.140.216 (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentation[edit]

The section "Stratonovich interpretation and supersymmetric theory of SDEs" seems totally polemical. I hardly have my own view -- but from its tone, I don't believe what it says. 2001:171B:2274:7C21:B131:9FDB:F82B:CF1C (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I have removed most of it and tried to reformulate the first couple of sentences in a more factual way. Hairer (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]