Why is Method 2 More Precise than Method 1 in Statistical Analysis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter arierreF
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Method
AI Thread Summary
Method 2 is considered more precise than Method 1 in statistical analysis because it reduces uncertainty by averaging measurements across multiple groups. By dividing 100 measurements into 10 groups and calculating the mean for each, the resulting standard deviation of these means is smaller than that of the original 100 measurements. This reduction in standard deviation indicates less variability among the group means, leading to greater precision. However, it is important to note that Method 2 does not increase accuracy; it simply provides a more precise estimate of the mean. Overall, the discussion highlights the relationship between grouping data and the resulting statistical precision.
arierreF
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
First of all, as you can see I'm new in forum. Sorry if i am posting in wrong section.

Problem: A student measure the times 100 times.
Method 1:
He calculates the mean X and the standard deviation \sigma.
Method 2:
Now the student, divides the 100 measurements in 10 groups.
He calculates the value of mean to each group. Therefore he calculates the standard deviation (with the 10 values corresponding to the mean of each group).


Question:

Why the method 2 is more precise than the method 1?

Attempt:

In my experimental results, i observe that method 2 has a small standard deviation. Ok so i can conclude that method 2 is more precise because we have a small uncertainties.

But why this happens? If we divided in four intervals, the stranded deviation would be smallest. but why??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Method 2 is not more accurate than method 1.

Let σ = α1 for method 1. Let σ2 = std deviation of one of the ten averaged samples. Let σ3 = std deviation of the ten averaged samples.

Then σ2 = (√10)σ1 but σ3 = (1/√10)σ2
= (1/√10)(√10)σ1 = σ1.
 
rude man said:
Method 2 is not more accurate than method 1.

Let σ = α1 for method 1. Let σ2 = std deviation of one of the ten averaged samples. Let σ3 = std deviation of the ten averaged samples.

Then σ2 = (√10)σ1 but σ3 = (1/√10)σ2
= (1/√10)(√10)σ1 = σ1.

With my experimental results, with method 1 i calculated the standard deviation σ for the 100 measurements.

With method 2, i divided the 100 measurements in 10 random groups. Then i obtained 10 means.

The standard deviation of the 10 mean values, is smaller than the standard deviation of the 100 measurements.
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top