MHB Applying the central limit theorem

oyth94
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Suppose the time in days until a component fails has the gamma distribution with alpha = 5, and theta = 1/10. When a component fails, it is immediately replaced by a new component. Use the central limit theorem to estimate the probability that 40 components will together be sufficient to last at least 6 years. *Assume that a year has 365.25 days.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: applying the central limit theorem

If the time is expressed in days, then the mean time before a failure for one component is $\mu = \alpha\ \theta = \frac{1}{2}\ \text{day}$ and for 40 components is $40\ \mu = 20\ \text{days}$... in this case to guarantee 6 x 365.25 = 2191.5 days of continuous functionality of the equipment seems a little problematic...Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
Re: applying the central limit theorem

Hint: We want the probability that $Y = \sum_{i=0}^{40} X_i$ is greater than 6 years, where each $X_i$ has a Gamma distribution with known parameters. By the Central Limit Theorem the distribution of $Y$ is approximately Normal. You can use the mean and variance of $X_i$ to find the mean and variance of $Y$. From there, it should be easy.
 
Re: applying the central limit theorem

Given n r.v. $X_{1}, X_{2},..., X_{n}$ with the same distribution, mean $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^{2}$, then for n 'large enough' the r.v. $S = X_{1} + X_{2} + ... + X_{n}$ is normal distributed with mean $\mu_{S} = n\ \mu$ and variance $\sigma^{2}_{S} = n\ \sigma^{2}$. In this case is...

$\displaystyle \mu= \alpha\ \theta = \frac {1}{2} \implies \mu_{S} = 40\ \mu = 20$

$\displaystyle \sigma^{2}= \alpha\ \theta^{2} = \frac{1}{20} \implies \sigma^{2}_{S}= 40\ \sigma^{2} = 2$

The probability that S is greater than x days is...

$\displaystyle P\{S > x\} = \frac{1}{2}\ \text{erfc}\ (\frac{x - \mu_{S}}{\sigma_{S}\ \sqrt{2}})\ (1)$

... and for x = 2191.5 we have...

$\displaystyle P\{S > x\} = \frac{1}{2}\ \text{erfc}\ (1085.75)\ (2)$

Of course the quantity (2) is numerically unvaluable and an approximate value is given in...

http://www.mathhelpboards.com/f52/unsolved-statistic-questions-other-sites-part-ii-1566/index4.html#post12076

In any case is a number 'very small'... exceeding our imagination (Wasntme)...Kind regards $\chi$ $\sigma$
 
Last edited:
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Back
Top