Hi, sorry to bug you again, just needed to know if my understanding of the result is correct, if the equation in my post above is mathematical y correct for the odds of branded to non-branded.
I know if it were just a case of the odds of branded to thin non-branded then it is just...
Thanks again, I have done the problem now and have found that the odds that the cables are branded is roughly 1/3. I.e. it is almost three times more likely to be unbranded.
The posterior for the thick non-branded was so small as expected given the data, so this will make practically no...
Right! Ok I think I got it now. Thank you so much for your help, I was getting confused thinking the normal distributions were needed for the prior too.
Ok yeah, so 30% branded, 35% thick non-branded, 35% thin non-branded, I get that, but where do the normal distributions of the sizes for the branded, thick and thin non-branded come into play? In terms of the "data" is the only data the data we got when we measured the cable ourselves and got...
Thanks for the quick reply, ah I didn't think of splitting it into three. The prior probability for each hypothesis is where I am/were getting confused between knowing the sizes are normally distributed i.e. ##N(\mu=23mm \ \ \sigma=0.75mm)## for the non-branded, and also knowing that 30% in...
My example question is as below.
The question is wordy and hard to wrap your head around but I completely understand what it is asking, I just have no idea how to go about it, or where to start. I have spent hours scratching my head on this one!
We have been taught two methods of Bayesian...
First I do try the problems myself and then go back to check the solutions to see if I was correct. With this particular one one I had the first answer correct (for r > R2) but the second bit I was way off from what the solution says and could not see how the final answer comes about, hence...
Ok yeah I understand that is what has been done. The bit I don't get is how the second line comes about algebraically, as it looks (to me) as if there has been a factor of ##\frac{1}{\pi (R_2^2 - R_1^2)} ## has been introduced. I can't see where that came from?
Yeah I understand that bit, I just don't understand how algebraically to get to the second line from the first line r.e. R1 < r < R2. There was an image included but I am having trouble getting it on here, but essentially it is a cylindrical wire such that from the very centre up to R1 is thin...
I am preparing for an exam and I am going through a past paper which has solutions given for the questions but I need help understanding how the answer comes about. I suspect it may be just the algebra I don't get, but it may be the physics too.
Wasn't sure if this was the correct forum either...
Ah yeah. Sorry. I forgot about that pesky x, and was focusing only on the wavefunction and wavefunction squared thinking that I was missing something there!
Plus as a mature student, the time I learn about parity of numbers in general and multiplying them etc was about 16 years ago (probs...
I was not sure where to post this here or in calculus, but seeing as the underlying basic principle of my question is regarding parity of functions I am posting it here, but feel free to move if needed.
Basically I am getting ready for a (intro to) QM exam and I still struggle with some basic...
Oh, because first I was trying to find the B field outside of the conductor, so my contour C encircled the whole conductor (and in my head a little bit of the space around it but I suppose that doesn't matter as there's no current there). I suppose it would be the same inside the conductor too...