Turbid water is muddy or cloudy water. Sunlight is necessary for most life forms; thus turbid water

zuzogiecwu 2022-05-14 Answered
Turbid water is muddy or cloudy water. Sunlight is necessary for most life forms; thus turbid water is considered a threat to wetland ecosystems. Passive filtration systems are commonly used to reduce turbidity in wetlands. Suspended solids are measured in mg/l. Is there a relation between input and output turbidity for a passive filtration system and, if so, is it statistically significant? At a wetlands environment in Illinois, the inlet and outlet turbidity of a passive filtration system have been measured. A random sample of measurements are shown below. (Reference: EPA Wetland Case Studies.)
Reading 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Inlet (mg/l) 59.1 25.7 70.5 71.0 37.6 43.5 13.1 24.2 16.7 49.1 67.6 31.7
Outlet (mg/l) 18.2 14.3 15.3 17.5 13.1 8.0 4.1 4.4 4.3 5.8 16.3 7.1
Use a 1% level of significance to test the claim that there is a monotone relationship (either way) between the ranks of the inlet readings and outlet readings.
(a) Rank-order the inlet readings using 1 as the largest data value. Also rank-order the outlet readings using 1 as the largest data value. Then construct a table of ranks to be used for a Spearman rank correlation test.
Reading Inlet
Rank x Oulet
Rank y d = x - y d2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12Σd2 =
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

Answers (1)

Kristina Petty
Answered 2022-05-15 Author has 15 answers
r s = 1 6 d 2 n ( n 2 1
Spearman's correlation coefficient is given by the formula given above.
Here n= 12
Reading 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Inlet (mg/l) 59.1 25.7 70.5 71 37.6 43.5 13.1 24.2 16.7 49.1 67.6 31.7
Outlet (mg/l) 18.2 14.3 15.3 17.5 13.1 8 4.1 4.4 4.3 5.8 16.3 7.1
Inlet Rank X 9 4 11 12 6 7 1 3 2 8 10 5
Outlet Rank Y 12 8 9 11 7 6 1 3 2 4 10 5
d= x-y -3 -4 3 1 -1 1 0 0 0 4 0 0
d^2 9 16 9 1 1 1 0 0 0 16 0 0
( Summation d^2) = (9+16+9+1+1+1+16)
= 53
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 2021-02-23
Interpreting z-scores: Complete the following statements using your knowledge about z-scores.
a. If the data is weight, the z-score for someone who is overweight would be
-positive
-negative
-zero
b. If the data is IQ test scores, an individual with a negative z-score would have a
-high IQ
-low IQ
-average IQ
c. If the data is time spent watching TV, an individual with a z-score of zero would
-watch very little TV
-watch a lot of TV
-watch the average amount of TV
d. If the data is annual salary in the U.S and the population is all legally employed people in the U.S., the z-scores of people who make minimum wage would be
-positive
-negative
-zero
asked 2021-03-02
Studies indicate that drinking water supplied by some old lead-lined city piping systems may contain harmful levels of lead. Based on data presented by Karalekas and colleagues,it appears that the distribution of lead content readings for individual water specimens has mean .033mg/L and standard deviation .10mg/L. Explain why it is obvious that the lead content readings are not normally distributed.
asked 2022-06-16
I'm a bit confused by the various geometrical/visual interpretations of SVD or better I'm wondering how to reconcile them.
Transformations : As explained here, the 3 matrices produced by the SVD can be interpreted as rotation, scaling, rotation.
Projection on an axis (dimensionality reduction): As explained here, SVD enables to capture the most of the variance in the data by selecting the right orthogonal axes.
My (very naive) question is: are these 2 interpretations related visually or not at all, and if yes, how? Or are they 2 unrelated applications of SVD?
As far as I understand, the transformations of the matrices (1) can be applied to anything/any object, so it's not about the data mentioned in (2) so I would say it's not related but I may be wrong (because in (2) we also talk about rotations...).
Please note that I'm looking for the intuition with as few math as possible (I don't know much linear algebra as you may have guessed).
Many thanks.
asked 2022-05-22
Boy Born on a Tuesday - is it just a language trick?
The following probability question appeared in an earlier thread:
I have two children. One is a boy born on a Tuesday. What is the probability I have two boys?
The claim was that it is not actually a mathematical problem and it is only a language problem.
If one wanted to restate this problem formally the obvious way would be like so:
Definition: Sex is defined as an element of the set boy,girl.
Definition: Birthday is defined as an element of the set Monday,Tuesday,Wednesday,Thursday,Friday,Saturday,Sunday
Definition: A Child is defined to be an ordered pair: (sex ×birthday).
Let (x,y) be a pair of children,
Define an auxiliary predicate H ( s , b ) : ! ! s = boy  and  b = Tuesday.
Calculate P ( x  is a boy and  y  is a boy | H ( x )  or  H ( y ) )I don't see any other sensible way to formalize this question.
To actually solve this problem now requires no thought (infact it is thinking which leads us to guess incorrect answers), we just compute
P ( x  is a boy and  y  is a boy | H ( x )  or  H ( y ) ) = P ( x  is a boy and  y  is a boy and  ( H ( x )  or  H ( y ) ) ) P ( H ( x )  or  H ( y ) ) = P ( ( x  is a boy and  y  is a boy and  H ( x ) )  or  ( x  is a boy and  y  is a boy and  H ( y ) ) ) P ( H ( x ) ) + P ( H ( y ) ) P ( H ( x ) ) P ( H ( y ) ) = P ( x  is a boy and  y  is a boy and  x  born on Tuesday ) + P ( x  is a boy and  y  is a boy and  y  born on Tuesday ) P ( x  is a boy and  y  is a boy and  x  born on Tuesday and  y  born on Tuesday ) P ( H ( x ) ) + P ( H ( y ) ) P ( H ( x ) ) P ( H ( y ) ) = 1 / 2 1 / 2 1 / 7 + 1 / 2 1 / 2 1 / 7 1 / 2 1 / 2 1 / 7 1 / 7 1 / 2 1 / 7 + 1 / 2 1 / 7 1 / 2 1 / 7 1 / 2 1 / 7 = 13 / 27
Now what I am wondering is, does this refute the claim that this puzzle is just a language problem or add to it? Was there a lot of room for misinterpreting the questions which I just missed?
asked 2021-10-20
Simplify the following expression:
(2-3y)+(6+8y)
asked 2022-05-16
Relating factors of a polynomial over GF(q) and G F ( q m )
I am reading Richard Blahut's book "Algebraic Codes for Data Transmission" and have come to an impasse in my understanding in section 5.3. In this section, the author wants to relate the factors of a polynomial over GF(q) and the factors of that same polynomial over a GF-extension field G F ( q m ).
There is a good example in the book that I will use here to ask my question. Specifically the GF fields in this example use q=2 and m=4, so there is the prime field GF(2) and the extension field G F ( 2 4 ). The polynomial to be factored over both of these fields is one with particularly special properties, of the form x q m 1 1. So, the polynomial for this example is x 15 1.
The author first factors x 15 1 over GF(2). The prime factors are:
x 15 1 = ( x + 1 ) ( x 2 + x + 1 ) ( x 4 + x + 1 ) ( x 4 + x 3 + 1 ) ( x 4 + x 3 + x 2 + x + 1 )
This factorization over GF(2) makes sense to me and I can easily verify it in MATLAB.
The author then chooses two of the above prime factors and forms a new polynomial:
g ( x ) = ( x 4 + x 3 + 1 ) ( x 4 + x 3 + x 2 + x + 1 ) = x 8 + x 4 + x 2 + x + 1
The above multiplication over GF(2) also makes sense to me and I can easily verify it in MATLAB.
However, the author then changes to analyzing the same polynomial g ( x ) = x 8 + x 4 + x 2 + x + 1 in the extension field G F ( 2 4 ). It seems to be implied that because G F ( 2 4 ) in an extension field of GF(2), and because the polynomial in question is comprised of prime factors (over GF(2)) of the special composite polynomial x15−1, that this switch to the extension field G F ( 2 4 ) is justified.
To analyze g ( x ) in the extension field, we agree to represent the 16 elements of the extension field as the usual powers of the primitive field element alpha:
0 , 1 , α , α 2 , α 3 , α 4 , α 5 , α 6 , α 7 , α 8 , α 9 , α 10 , α 11 , α 12 , α 13 , α 14
The author claims that the aforementioned polynomial g ( x ) = x 8 + x 4 + x 2 + x + 1 has roots/zeroes over
g ( α 3 ) = 0
I am completely unable to make sense of this claim. It raises numerous questions in my mind, and the most basic of these questions is, how can I verify that g ( α ) = 0 and that g ( α 3 ) = 0?
To show how I've tried to verify that g ( α ) = 0 for g ( x ) = x 8 + x 4 + x 2 + x + 1, the author uses the following detailed representation of the elements of extension field G F ( 2 4 ). Of course to describe the elements of any GF extension field, we must choose an irreducible polynomial for the reducing modulus, and throughout the book the author uses the modulus α 4 + α + 1, yielding the 16 field elements:
0 = α 1 = α 0 α 1 = α α 2 = α 2 α 3 = α 3 α 4 = α + 1 α 5 = α 2 + α α 6 = α 3 + α 2 α 7 = α 3 + α + 1 α 8 = α 2 + 1 α 9 = α 3 + α α 10 = α 2 + α + 1 α 11 = α 3 + α 2 + α α 12 = α 3 + α 2 + α + 1 α 13 = α 3 + α 2 + 1 α 14 = α 3 + 1
Given the above element representation of G F ( 2 4 ), we return to the enigmatic claim that for g(x)=x8+x4+x2+x+1, there is the root g(α)=0 over GF(24). We have:
g ( x ) = x 8 + x 4 + x 2 + x + 1
So it seems that for g(x)=x8+x4+x2+x+1 polynomial, g ( α ) 0.
Can anyone show me how to demonstrate that α (as a GF(16) element) is a root of a polynomial that was computed over GF(2)?
If it would be helpful, I can scan the 3 pages of the book and you can see the author's own words for the above ideas. He throws this information at you very quickly, so it's fairly difficult for me (as a non-mathematician) to follow.
asked 2021-02-11
This is from a recent news article about a study on children using drugs: “The researchers analyzed the data to estimate the average age at first-time use for 18 internationally regulated drugs for each year included in the study. Looking at year-to-year trends, they found that the average age at first use had increased for 12 out of 18 drugs, including alcohol, cocaine, ecstasy, hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, LSD, marijuana, stimulants, and tobacco products such as cigars, cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. For the other six drugs— crack cocaine, methamphetamines, opioids, PCP, sedatives, and tranquilizers—they found no statistically significant changes in the age at first use.”