Error propagation with two functions, two unknowns.

Hepth
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
457
Reaction score
40
If I have two independent variables x,y, and two measurements, m1, m2 with errors. And the dependence is thus:
<br /> m_1 \pm \delta m_1 = f[x,y]<br />
<br /> m_2 \pm \delta m_2 = g[x,y]<br />

Now in my case, f and g are complicated expressions of x and y with no simple solution. (Actually I think i can solve one for x, but not for y).

Now if the equations were easy, I could solve for x and y:
<br /> x \pm \delta_x = F[m_1, m_2,...]<br />
<br /> y \pm \delta_y = G[m_1, m_2,...]<br />

And from there add the errors in quadrature to get the x and y errors.

BUT if I can't solve for x and y independently, and I must use numerical solutions to get the results ( I can, its easy). How can I go about getting the ERRORS? Is there another way I can solve for the errors and numerically solve for them, or a different method?

I have Mathematica if that helps.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You should explain what you mean by "error". Are you doing numerical approximations that involve an error in that sense? Are you doing a stochastic simulation where randomness causes an "error"? Or are you teking physical measurements with equipment that has a specified precision?
 
Hepth said:
If I have two independent variables x,y, and two measurements, m1, m2 with errors. And the dependence is thus:
<br /> m_1 \pm \delta m_1 = f[x,y]<br />
<br /> m_2 \pm \delta m_2 = g[x,y]<br />

Now in my case, f and g are complicated expressions of x and y with no simple solution. (Actually I think i can solve one for x, but not for y).

Now if the equations were easy, I could solve for x and y:
<br /> x \pm \delta_x = F[m_1, m_2,...]<br />
<br /> y \pm \delta_y = G[m_1, m_2,...]<br />
Not sure if I've understood completely, but see if this helps.
Are f, g differentiable? Can you evaluate the derivatives at (m1, m2)? If so, can write \delta m_1 = \delta f = f_x \delta x + f_y \delta y; \delta m_2 = \delta g = g_x \delta x + g_y \delta y
Evaluating fx etc. at (m1, m2), solve to find δx, δy.
Will need to check that the second order terms are not important.
 
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