Central Limit Theorem Question

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the Central Limit Theorem and its application to the Rockwell hardness measurements of metal pins, specifically focusing on the probability of sample means for different sample sizes. The original poster presents a problem involving a normal distribution with a known mean and standard deviation, seeking to determine the probability that the average hardness for samples of 9 and 40 pins is at least 52.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the calculation of the standard error for the sample mean and the resulting z-score. Some express concern over the large z-score and question whether the calculations imply a probability of zero. Others suggest that the probabilities, while small, are not actually zero and explore the implications of using a normal versus t-distribution for small sample sizes.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the calculations and the appropriateness of statistical methods used. There is recognition of the small probabilities involved, and some participants offer alternative approaches or approximations for estimating these probabilities.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the assumption of normality in the distribution of pin hardness measurements and the implications of sample size on the choice of statistical methods. The original poster's concern about the practicality of the question is also highlighted.

dirtybiscuit
Messages
8
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


The Rockwell hardness of certain metal pins is known to have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 1.5.
a)if the distribution of all such pin hardness measurements is known to be normal, what is the probability that the average hardness for a random sample of 9 pins is at least 52.
b)what if sample is 40 pins?

Homework Equations


So I know that μ = 50 and σ(original) = 1.5, and n = 9

The Attempt at a Solution


σ(sample) = σ(original)/\sqrt{9} = 1.5/3 = .5

now find P(\bar{x} > 52) by relating it to the standard normal dist

find z = (52 - 50)/.5 = 4.

This seems like a huge z score to have and it pretty much much makes the probability 0. Am I doing something wrong here? It just seems like a pointless question if in both cases the probability comes to zero.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The probabilities are really very small, but still differ from zero. There are online calculators http://www.solvemymath.com/online_math_calculator/statistics/cdf_calculator.php , for example.

ehild
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your sample size is quite small. Shouldn't you be using a t-estimator instead?
 
Zondrina said:
Your sample size is quite small. Shouldn't you be using a t-estimator instead?
We know (or assume) that all pins follow a normal distribution. Then the mean of 9 pins follows a normal distribution as well.
The calculation is fine, the result is just a small number.
 
Zondrina said:
Your sample size is quite small. Shouldn't you be using a t-estimator instead?

No. When the variance is known we use the normal distribution. When the variance is unknown (and is estimated using the data itself) we use the t-distribution.
 
dirtybiscuit said:

Homework Statement


The Rockwell hardness of certain metal pins is known to have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 1.5.
a)if the distribution of all such pin hardness measurements is known to be normal, what is the probability that the average hardness for a random sample of 9 pins is at least 52.
b)what if sample is 40 pins?


Homework Equations


So I know that μ = 50 and σ(original) = 1.5, and n = 9

The Attempt at a Solution


σ(sample) = σ(original)/\sqrt{9} = 1.5/3 = .5

now find P(\bar{x} > 52) by relating it to the standard normal dist

find z = (52 - 50)/.5 = 4.

This seems like a huge z score to have and it pretty much much makes the probability 0. Am I doing something wrong here? It just seems like a pointless question if in both cases the probability comes to zero.

The probability is small, but nowhere near zero. (In fact, the ability to estimate very small probabilities is crucial in reliability and safety studies, etc.) For large ##x > 0## you can find simple, fairly accurate approximations to ##G(x) \equiv P(X > x)## for standard normal ##X##.
Let \phi(t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{-t^2/2}.
We have
G(x) = \int_x^{\infty} \phi(t) \, dt \\<br /> A_1(x) = \frac{\phi(x)}{x} \;\; \text{approximation 1}\\<br /> A_2(x) = \frac{\phi(x)}{x} - \frac{\phi(x)}{x^3} \;\; \text{approximation 2}
The functions ##A_1(x)## and ##A_2(x)## are approximations to ##G(x)##, with ##A_2## being a bit better than ##A_1## for large ##x > 0## (but may be worse for small ##x > 0##). You can see how they perform from the following table:
Code:
  x       G(x)      A1(x)      A2(x) 
 1.0  1.58655e-01 2.41971e-01 0.00000e+00
 1.5  6.68072e-02 8.63451e-02 4.79695e-02
 2.0  2.27501e-02 2.69955e-02 2.02466e-02
 2.5  6.20967e-03 7.01132e-03 5.88951e-03
 3.0  1.34990e-03 1.47728e-03 1.31314e-03
 3.5  2.32629e-04 2.49338e-04 2.28984e-04
 4.0  3.16712e-05 3.34576e-05 3.13665e-05

These approximations are based in integration by parts, using the fact that ##d \phi(t)/dt = - t \phi(t)##:
G(x) = \int_x^{\infty} \phi(t) \, dt = \int_x^{\infty} \frac{1}{t} \left(- \frac{d \phi(t)}{dt} \right) \, dt<br /> = \frac{\phi(x)}{x} - \int_x^{\infty} \frac{\phi(t)}{t^2} \, dt
The approximation ##A_1(x)## is just the first term above, and it should be a pretty good approximation for large ##x > 0## because the magnitude of the neglected term is less than ##G(x)/x^2##. The approximation ##A_2(x)## estimates the second term above through another integration by parts.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K