Fitting Normal Distribution Histogram - Help Needed

randa177
Messages
90
Reaction score
1
I have a set of data that I used to create a histogram, and would like to fit it with a Gauss shape...I used the regular equation for a normal distribution, using the mean value and the standard deviation of my data, but the Gauss shape doesn't seem to be really fitting my data... I might be doing something wrong... I am attaching it here...

Thanks!
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Yeah, the data doesn't look normal. Maybe it's a bimodal distribution of some sort?
 
actually when I use the same of data on an online program I get better results...
These are the numbers I am using:
-2.1
-1.8
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1.1
-1
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.8

Do you know what the problem might be?
PS: Try putting these numbers here: http://azzalini.stat.unipd.it/SN/sn-fit.html
It gives a reasonable solution...

Why isn't giving me similar solution? Any idea?
 
I agree with CrGreatHouse - your data shouldn't be considered to be normally distributed.

More importantly, if the data in your final post is your entire data set, the sample size is far too small to get a reliable idea of shape of the underlying distribution. A different type of graph (boxplot perhaps) would be a far better choice.
 
What if I use a skew normal distribution... do you think that might fit the data better?
 
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.
Back
Top