No barefeet this isn't a homework problem lol... its just been a while since Ive thought about circles.... Im asking in the context of before pi. OK its grade school question, its sort of stupid, but its legit, please indulge if you don't mind.
(fyi I asked a similarly dull question in gen...
A perfect square inside a circle (so the inner square's corners touch the circle) and a perfect square surrounds the circle (so the circle touches the sides of the outer square. Are the extra bits between the inner square and the circle equal to the extra bits between the circle and the outer...
This is what I think also, like a ghost image, Im going to try this on windows movie maker, but not sure if it lets you cycle images like that. But what if instead of a person against a background vs just the background you cycle between; 1) person against 1 background and 2) same person against...
with a digital lens, but I mean how would the image appear on the actual screen? So you take pic of someone standing in room, then another pic of just the room, then using some editing software you cycle back and forth between pics really fast, say 500 cycles per sec (is that hertz?)... What...
like a person with a background and just the background really fast, like a strobe effect. If you cycle back and forth fast enough would the person appear like normal or 50% see through?
thanks... If I may use a different example then.. an automated blood pressure cuff. The repeated measurements are all automated so biases are less. If just one automated measurement is 99% accurate to the true blood pressure, then wouldn't the mean of 60 automated measurements over 60mins be...
OK thanks... so also what does it mean exactly when something is said to be "90% accurate?" Is it equivalent to saying "9 times out of 10 this measuring device will give the actual value" ?
If the tip of the bell in a bell-shaped histogram is the best estimate of the true value, then doesn't the accuracy (the difference between measured value and actual value) of the average of all your measurements increase as the data points increase? So that if you had infinite amount of data...
Thanks for the answer phinds... what im curious about is whether this is true in a general sense. That is, if the weighing scale is known to be accurate to say, +/- .01g, then does the mean of repeated measurements = more accuracy?
For example, I weigh a pebble and get a value of 7.1g. Then I measure again and get 7.6g, then again and get 6.9g.. Then I repeat the measurement using the same scale 5000 times. (its just a thought experiment). Is the mean of all measurements closer to the true value and if so, why? thanks