Is My Error Propagation Formula Correct? - Help Needed

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the error propagation formula used to calculate the error in the expression z = 2^(x-y) with given values for x, y, and their standard deviations. The original formula proposed by Alex yields an error of 0.010958, which significantly differs from the machine's reported error of 0.07. A simulation approach is suggested, which results in a standard deviation of approximately 0.0978848 for z, indicating potential issues with the normality of the measurements or the accuracy of the provided standard deviations. Another participant shares a traditional error propagation formula that gives an error of 0.095135, aligning more closely with the simulation results. Alex concludes that the discrepancy with the machine's output may be due to unaccounted factors and plans to consult the manufacturer for clarification.
dipluso
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I've been trying to reproduce the output of an analytical machine here at work by doing the calculation myself in Excel but I can't get the error to match. Perhaps I am propagating the error incorrectly...

The calculation is z = 2^(x-y)

The values are:
x = 24.96
y = 25.98
and the std. devs are:
deltax=0.265016
deltay=0.085049

I figured that the error in z should be:
delta z = z * sqrt((2*deltax/x)^2 + (2*deltay/y)^2)
which would give 0.010958

However, the software/machine reports the error as 0.07
I am not 100% sure how the software is calculating the error but it says it uses the standard deviations.

Am I making a mistake in my formula for error propagation? (I haven't done this in a while, frankly).

Any advice much appreciated.

Thanks,
-Alex
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Remember that whatever variation is present in x and y will be exponentiated by the time it appears in Z. I am not sure about your error analysis method, but I prefer to go back to basics and do a simulation:

Code:
x = 24.96;
y = 25.98;

sx = 0.265016;
sy = 0.085049;

(* this simulates a million measurements of X and Y
 by drawing from a normal distribution with the
 mean and standard deviation you have given *)

distX = RandomReal[NormalDistribution[x, sx], 1000000];
distY = RandomReal[NormalDistribution[y, sy], 1000000];

distZ = 2^(distX - distY);

StandardDeviation[distZ]

0.0978848

I get a somewhat different answer from the instrument you are reading, so either the measurements are not normally distributed (i.e. the instrument is automatically correcting for a systematic bias) or else the standard deviations are not yet representative of the true population.

I attached a bitmap graphic of the Histograms for all three variables in this simulation, although for visual clarity I reduced the size of the simulation from 1 million measurements to only 1 thousand. The main feature to notice is that the Z distribution is slightly skewed towards larger values, likely as a result of exponentiating x - y. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable about statistics can explain how to properly quantify the error in the Z distribution.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Well in my opinion the error should be given by: (this is the error formula I've always been taught)

\sigma^2_z = (\frac{\partial z}{\partial x})^2\sigma^2_x + (\frac{\partial z}{\partial y})^2\sigma^2_y}

which gives an error of 0.095135
 
Thanks to you both.
I have to say that you both give very reasonable answers - and indeed they report similar errors. I don't know why the value reported by the machine's software is different (mine was just plain wrong). Indeed it may be that it takes so other invisible factor into account. I'll have to ask the manufacturer.
Thanks again,
-A.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top