Juan makes a measurement in a chemistry laboratory and records the result in his lab report. The stardard deviation of lab measurements made by studen

Cem Hayes 2020-12-24 Answered
Juan makes a measurement in a chemistry laboratory and records the result in his lab report. The stardard deviation of lab measurements made by students is σ=10 milligrams. Juan repeats the measurement 3 times and records the mean xbar of his 3 measurements.
(a) What is the standard deviation of Juan's mean result? (That is, if Juan kept making sets of 3 measurements and averaging them, what would be the standard deviation of all his xbar's?)
(b) How many times must juan repeat the measurement to reduce the standard deviation of xbar to5? Explain to someone who knows nothing about statistics the advantage of reporting the average of several measurements rather than the result of a single measurement.
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Expert Answer

Clara Reese
Answered 2020-12-25 Author has 120 answers
Step 1
Given,
The standard deviation of lab measurements made by students is σ=10 milligrams.
Sample size is n=3
Now, the standard deviation of the sampling distribution is given by,
σx=σn
Step 2
a)
σx=σn
=103=5.7735
b)
σx=σn
5=10n
n=105
n=2n=4
Juan must repeat the measurement 4 times to reduce the standard deviation of xbar to5
Reporting the average of several measurements has more advantage than the result of a single measurement. Since, the average of several measurements is more likely to be closer to the mean, than the result of a single measurement.
Not exactly what you’re looking for?
Ask My Question

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Relevant Questions

asked 2022-05-26
Prove that the following set is a dynkin system over R
D = { B B ( R ) | ε > 0 A F 2 μ ( A B ) < ε }
Where
F 1 = { ( a , b ] R | a b }
F 2 = { k = 1 m I k | I 1 , I 2 , . . . , I m F 1 }
and μ is a probability measure of in measurable space ( R , B ( R ) )

I am trying to prove that R D , but I am confused as it is clear that R F 2 and it cannot be applied that μ ( R R ) = 0 < ε. Can you help me test that part? I have already proven that F 1 is a pi system, maybe that can help.
asked 2022-05-13
We study the definition of Lebesgue measurable set to be the following:
Let A R be called Lebesgue measurable if a Borel set B A such that | A B | = 0, where | . | denotes the Lebesgue outer measure of a set.
Then we have theorems like:
A R is Lebesgue measurable iff
(1) Given any ϵ > 0 there exists F A closed such that | A F | < ϵ.
(2) Given any ϵ > 0 there exists G A open such that | G A | < ϵ.
I have two questions here.
First is that what motivates the definition of Lebesgue measurable sets and second is that why we are approximating Lebesgue measurable sets from below by closed sets and from above by open sets.I am studying the topic measure theory from Sheldon Axler's book that does not give motivation behind these definitions and theorems.Can someone give me motivation behind these things?
asked 2022-03-25
Determine which of the four levels of measurement​ (nominal, ordinal,​ interval, ratio) is most appropriate for the data below.
Blood lead levels of low, medium, and high
Choose the correct answer below.
A. The nominal level of measurement is most appropriate because the data cannot be ordered.
B. The ordinal level of measurement is most appropriate because the data can be ordered, but differences (obtained by subtraction) cannot be found or are meaningless.
C. The ratio level of measurement is most appropriate because the data can be ordered, differences (obtained by subtraction) can be found and are meaningful, and there is a natural starting point.
D. The interval level of measurement is most appropriate because the data can be ordered, differences (obtained by subtraction) can be found and are meaningful
asked 2022-05-29
I have a question about the notation used in this problem please dont solve the problem for me.
Show that | | X Y | | 1 = | | X | | 1 | | Y | | 1 for independent r.vs X and Y. Show further that if X and Y are also integrable, then E ( X Y ) = E ( X ) E ( Y )
I don't understand what the difference between | | X | | 1 and E ( | X | ). I assume we're talking about the L 1 ( P ) norm? But then
| | X | | 1 = Ω | X ( ω ) | d P ( ω ) = E ( | X | )
So if this is finite, then E ( X ) exists therefore it is integrable already (so why "also"?) Therefore the first "show that" would follow from the second
asked 2022-05-22
Considering X = { 0 , 1 } N , the space of infinite sequences of 0's and 1's, and the σ-algebra generated by the cylinders sets [ x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x n ], where x i { 0 , 1 }.
I want to show that the set of all x X such that lim n 1 n i = 1 n x i = 1 2 is in this σ-algebra.
I'm a little bit lost on this one, I'm not sure where to start.
I know the definition of a convergent sequence, and I know that I should be able to construct the set of such sequences from unions, intersections and complements of the cylinders.
Any idea would be of great help!
asked 2022-05-27
Suppose { f n } is a sequence of (Lebesgue) measurable functions on R d with each f n 0. If f n ( x ) f ( x ) for a.e. x, then by Fatou's lemma, we have
f lim inf n f n .
Its proof begins with a non-negative function g that is bounded and supported on a set E R d of finite measure with g f. If we set g n = min { g , f n }, then each g n is a measurable function and supported on E. Furthermore, g n ( x ) g ( x ) for a.e. x. By the bounded convergence theorem, ...
The above material is quoted from the book by Stein and Shakarchi with some minor changes, and I wonder why g n g almost everywhere. I wish I could offer you some useful ideas, but unfortunately I know nothing, which is why I'm here. I would much appreciate it if you could do me a favor. Thank you.
asked 2022-05-20
I am following Folland to study integration theory. It seems like we are restricted to consider only measurable functions such that X | f | d μ < + as integrable. However, Folland also mentioned that the definition X f d μ := X f + d μ X f d μ is well-defined for either X f + d μ < + or X f d μ < + .
My question is: What desirable result would fail if we defined integrable function not as "absolutely integrable", but as the later definition for measurable functions such that either X f + d μ < + or X f d μ < + ? It seems natural, at least at first glance, to define integrable function as in the later sense and allow infinite integrals to happen.
I can start off with a simple one: If a function f 1 , f 2 : X R are integrable in the later sense, then it is not necessarily true that f 1 + f 2 : X R is integrable and so we do not have X f 1 + f 2 d μ as X f 1 d μ + X f 2 d μ.