Is My Error Propagation Formula Correct? - Help Needed

dipluso
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I've been trying to reproduce the output of an analytical machine here at work by doing the calculation myself in Excel but I can't get the error to match. Perhaps I am propagating the error incorrectly...

The calculation is z = 2^(x-y)

The values are:
x = 24.96
y = 25.98
and the std. devs are:
deltax=0.265016
deltay=0.085049

I figured that the error in z should be:
delta z = z * sqrt((2*deltax/x)^2 + (2*deltay/y)^2)
which would give 0.010958

However, the software/machine reports the error as 0.07
I am not 100% sure how the software is calculating the error but it says it uses the standard deviations.

Am I making a mistake in my formula for error propagation? (I haven't done this in a while, frankly).

Any advice much appreciated.

Thanks,
-Alex
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Remember that whatever variation is present in x and y will be exponentiated by the time it appears in Z. I am not sure about your error analysis method, but I prefer to go back to basics and do a simulation:

Code:
x = 24.96;
y = 25.98;

sx = 0.265016;
sy = 0.085049;

(* this simulates a million measurements of X and Y
 by drawing from a normal distribution with the
 mean and standard deviation you have given *)

distX = RandomReal[NormalDistribution[x, sx], 1000000];
distY = RandomReal[NormalDistribution[y, sy], 1000000];

distZ = 2^(distX - distY);

StandardDeviation[distZ]

0.0978848

I get a somewhat different answer from the instrument you are reading, so either the measurements are not normally distributed (i.e. the instrument is automatically correcting for a systematic bias) or else the standard deviations are not yet representative of the true population.

I attached a bitmap graphic of the Histograms for all three variables in this simulation, although for visual clarity I reduced the size of the simulation from 1 million measurements to only 1 thousand. The main feature to notice is that the Z distribution is slightly skewed towards larger values, likely as a result of exponentiating x - y. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable about statistics can explain how to properly quantify the error in the Z distribution.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Well in my opinion the error should be given by: (this is the error formula I've always been taught)

\sigma^2_z = (\frac{\partial z}{\partial x})^2\sigma^2_x + (\frac{\partial z}{\partial y})^2\sigma^2_y}

which gives an error of 0.095135
 
Thanks to you both.
I have to say that you both give very reasonable answers - and indeed they report similar errors. I don't know why the value reported by the machine's software is different (mine was just plain wrong). Indeed it may be that it takes so other invisible factor into account. I'll have to ask the manufacturer.
Thanks again,
-A.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top