Funny thing I've found in David Griffiths QM textbook

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a perceived error in David Griffiths' quantum mechanics textbook, specifically regarding the reasoning behind why the sum of deviations from the average of a random variable equals zero. Participants explore the implications of this reasoning and its connection to statistical concepts such as mean and median.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses appreciation for Griffiths' textbook but identifies a minor error in the reasoning presented about summing deviations from the average.
  • Another participant agrees that Griffiths' reasoning is incorrect but asserts that the conclusion—that the sum of deviations equals zero—remains valid.
  • A third participant comments on the relationship between mean and median in the context of normally-distributed data, suggesting that they coincide, which may not hold true for actual data.
  • Some participants note that the discussion includes humor related to the topic, referencing a joke about IQ distribution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that there is an error in Griffiths' reasoning, but they also acknowledge that the result of summing deviations being zero is still true. There is some disagreement regarding the implications of this error and the context of the discussion, particularly in relation to the distribution of IQ.

Contextual Notes

The discussion touches on the nuances of statistical measures and their interpretations, with some participants highlighting the difference between idealized models and actual data distributions.

Alexandre
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
I really like the book, its the first physics textbook that I liked actually. But I've found a minor error.
On page 8 (chapter 1 The Wave Function) it says that if you sum deviations from average of a random variable you'd get zero because " Δj is as often negative as positive", here's the formula:
[tex]\Delta j=j-<j>[/tex]

But I think that's not the reason you will get zero, it need not deviate the same number of times in both direction from the average, but in that case number of deviations on one side will be canceled by the magnitude of deviations on the opposite side, I think Griffith mixed median with an average.

wOXRB.jpg
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You are right.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Alexandre
The reasoning Griffiths gives is indeed incorrect, but the result is still true: summing deviations from the average gives you zero.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Alexandre
In a sense, Carlin is right, though I doubt he was aware of this when he made his comment: IQ ( a measure of intelligence/stupidity) is normally-distributed, so that the mean/average and median coincide.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Alexandre
WWGD said:
In a sense, Carlin is right, though I doubt he was aware of this when he made his comment: IQ ( a measure of intelligence/stupidity) is normally-distributed, so that the mean/average and median coincide.
On the idealized curve yes, on the actual data no. Besides it's a joke.
 
Alexandre said:
On the idealized curve yes, on the actual data no. Besides it's a joke.
Ah, sorry, I did not get it the 1st time. I guess a Carlin quote should have made it clear.
 
WWGD said:
Ah, sorry, I did not get it the 1st time. I guess a Carlin quote should have made it clear.
http://cdn.alltheragefaces.com/img/faces/large/happy-yes-l.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
24K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
29K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K