Is a Cubed Normally Distributed Variable Still Normal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jellis78
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
A normally distributed variable, when raised to the power of three, does not remain normally distributed, similar to how squaring it results in a chi-squared distribution. Non-linear transformations of normally distributed variables lead to distributions that are not normal. The standard deviation of the transformed variable depends on the specific transformation applied. The discussion highlights a misunderstanding regarding the transformation process and its implications for distribution characteristics. Clarification on obtaining the standard deviation for the cubed variable is sought, emphasizing the need for proper mathematical operations.
Jellis78
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi everybody,

I'm wrestling with the following problem:

Suppose a variable is normaly distributed, then is this same variable still normal distributed when raised to the power of 3? I know if the variable is raised to the power of 2 a chi-squared distribution is obtained, but what happens when raised to the power of 3?

I have a feeling that the variable is still normaly distributed but I can't prove it. Let me take this question one bit further; does anyone know what kind of transformation I have to apply to obtain the standard deviation of the transformed varaible?

Thank you and nice weekend

Jellis
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The answer to your first question is, in general no. Any non-linear transformation of a normally distributed variable gives one that is not linearly distributed. I'm not sure why you would accept that the square of a normally distributed variable is not normally distributed but think that the cube would be!
How you would obtain the standard deviation of a transformed variable depends strongly on the transformation.
 
Hi,

Thanks for the reply.

Of course, If the chi-square distribution is not normal then the cubic isn't normaly distributed either.

I made a excel sheet in which I made the mistake to raise the 3rd power of the frequency instead of the variable of the distribution... No wonder it still looked normally distributed

I still meant the transformation of raising the 3rd power of a normal distributed variable. So let me rephrase th equestion:

What kind of mathematical operation do I need to do to obtain the standard deviation of this ‘new’ variable?

Hope you can link me some sort of solution on the web...:rolleyes:

Jellis
 
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top