I need to know how precise a measurement system is, expressed as a standard deviation. I don't reall

Carolyn Beck 2022-07-01 Answered
I need to know how precise a measurement system is, expressed as a standard deviation. I don't really have much of a background in math so please excuse me if I'm a bit unclear or inaccurate about something.
The simplest way I know of doing this is by taking e.g. 100 measurements of the same object and then using the usual sample standard deviation formula.
Unfortunately, I can't use this method. I must measure different objects multiple times. Let's say 10 objects, 10 times each.
The thing that comes to mind is to calculate the mean for each group, subtract the relevant means from each measurement (sort of a normalisation) and then calculate the standard deviation from the resulting 100 numbers. Does this make sense? If not, how do I approach the problem?
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)

podesect
Answered 2022-07-02 Author has 20 answers
Suppose you have ng=100 independent measurements from the distribution N o r m ( μ , σ ) , where there are n=10 measurements on each of g=10 disjoint groups.
Let S i 2 = 1 9 n = 1 10 ( X i j X ¯ i ) 2 be the sample variance of group i out of g, where X i j is the jth measurement from group i and X ¯ i = 1 10 j = 1 10 X i j is the sample mean of the ith group.
Then the 'pooled' variance for the g groups is
S p 2 = 9 S 1 2 + 9 S 2 2 + + 9 S 10 2 90 .
S p 2 is an unbiased estimate of the population variance σ 2 . For our normal data, its distribution is given by 90 S p 2 / σ 2 C h i s q ( d f = 90 ) .
If necessary, this relationship would allow you to find a 95% confidence interval for σ 2 of the form ( 90 S p 2 / U , 90 S p 2 / L ) , where L and U cut probability 0.025 from the lower and upper tails of Chisq(df=90). For 90 'degrees of freedom' as in your example, L=65.65 and U=118.14 can be found from printed tables of the chi-squared distribution or by using software. (The result below is from R statistical software.)
qchisq(c(.025,.975), 90)## 65.64662 118.13589
Note: This kind of pooled variance is used in a one-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) with n replications on each of g groups. It is called the 'denominator mean square' or 'mean square for error'. A one-factor ANOVA could be used to check whether it is reasonable to assume that all g groups really do have the same population mean μ , as assumed in your example. You can find descriptions of such an ANOVA design in an intermediate level statistics book or online.

We have step-by-step solutions for your answer!

Expert Community at Your Service

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

You might be interested in

asked 2022-03-18
Classify each of the following by type of variables and level of measurement. a. Monthly payment: $1427 b. Number of jobs in the past 10 years: 1 c. Annual family income: $86, 000 d. Marital status: Married
asked 2022-05-18
All the sources I've checked speak of 'a collection', say F , of sets from some set X, and then go on to write things like:
If F F then F c F,
and so on.
Is it just convention in measure theory to speak of collections of sets instead of sets of sets and to use instead of when referring to members in the collection, OR, is there something more fundamental about collections that I'm missing?
asked 2022-07-02
I have somehow confused myself with this fairly straightforward proof. We need to show that λ f is a measurable function on ( S , S ), i.e. that for any c R : { s S : f ( s ) c } S. If λ 0, then the claim follows immediately from the measurability of f, namely as c / λ R it follows that { s S : f ( s ) c / λ } = { s S : λ f ( s ) c }
But then, if λ = 0 , λ f = 0 and I am not sure how to convince myself that λ f is measurable.
asked 2022-06-14
Suppose X, Y are real-valued random vectors. When can we say E [ g ( X , Y ) | X ] is an a.e. continuous function in X? I have mostly convinced myself of this argument, save for one step where I want to argue E [ 1 n i = 1 n X i X i e i 2 | ( X 1 , . . . , X n ) ] p E [ E [ X i X i e i 2 ] | ( X 1 , . . . , X n ) ] = E [ X i X i e i 2 ] by appealing to the weak law of large numbers and the continuous mapping theorem.
asked 2022-07-01
I'm trying to solve the following problem.
Let f be an integrable function in (0,1). Suppose that
0 1 f g 0
for any non negative, continuous g : ( 0 , 1 ) R . Prove that f 0 a.e. in (0,1).
I'm a little unsure on what it is that I must prove in order to conclude that f 0. I tried to show that 0 1 f 2 0 but I couldn't get very far.
I'm seeking hints on how to solve this. Thanks.
asked 2022-06-30
let f n : R R be a nonnegative sequence of Borel measurable functions which converge to a function f, and the integral of all f n and of f are all 1. Then does the integral of | f n f | goes to 0 as n ??
asked 2022-05-21
Define μ ( E ) as the number of points in E if E is finite and μ ( E ) = if E is infinite. Show that μ is an outer measure. Determine the measurable sets.
Evidently, μ is nonegative and monotone, and μ ( ) = 0. Let E n be a sequence of sets. It remains to show that μ is countably subadditive, i.e.,
(1) μ ( n = 1 E n ) n = 1 μ ( E n ) .
If μ ( E n ) = , then there is nothing to prove. Suppose μ ( E n ) < . Then μ ( E n ) 0, so that E n = for all values of n form some definite index N onward. Hence (1) reduces to
(2) μ ( n = 1 N 1 E n ) n = 1 N 1 μ ( E n ) .
But (2) follows from the inclusion-exclusion principle. Therefore μ is an outer measure.
That finite sets are measurable is obvious. What about infinite sets?