MHB Components working at a particular time

  • Thread starter Thread starter oyth94
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Components Time
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the expected number of working components in a system of 10, where each component j has a working probability of 1/j. The expected value is derived using the formula E{n} = H_{10}, which represents the 10th harmonic number. Participants note that the independence of the components means their probabilities do not influence each other. The final expected value indicates how many components are likely functioning at any given time. This approach effectively combines probability theory with practical application in systems analysis.
oyth94
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Hello .Sorry for all the questions I am asking...but I have another one I would like to seek help for.:

Suppose a system has 10 components and that a particular time the jth component is working with probability 1/j for j= 1,2,...10. How many components do you expect to be working at that particular time?

All I have done so far is calculating the probability for all 10 components and I know that the sum of all possible probabilities is 1.

But how should I solve the question?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
oyth94 said:
Hello .Sorry for all the questions I am asking...but I have another one I would like to seek help for.:

Suppose a system has 10 components and that a particular time the jth component is working with probability 1/j for j= 1,2,...10. How many components do you expect to be working at that particular time?

All I have done so far is calculating the probability for all 10 components and I know that the sum of all possible probabilities is 1.

But how should I solve the question?

The expected number of working components is...

$\displaystyle E\{n\} = 1 + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} + ... + \frac{1}{10} = H_{10}\ (1)$ Since the status of components are independent r.v. nothing can be said about the sum of their probabilities... Kind regards $\chi$ $\sigma$
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K