PLAUSIBILITY OF MU = 7 FOR FLORIDIAN STUDENT NEWSPAPER READING HABITS?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fear_of_Math
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    intervals
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the plausibility of the population mean (mu) for newspaper reading habits among Floridian students being 7, based on survey data. The survey reports a mean of 4.1 with a 95% confidence interval of (3.325-4.875). Since the value of 7 falls outside this confidence interval, it is deemed unlikely that mu equals 7. While it is theoretically possible for the true mean to be 7, the evidence suggests it is not a plausible estimate. The confusion stems from the distinction between population mean estimates and confidence intervals.
Fear_of_Math
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hey ladies and gents,
I have a question that I'm not fully getting.

An FL Student Survey reprts the results for responses on the number of times a week the subject reads a newspaper:

Variable : news
n = 60
mean = 4.1
standard deviation = 3.0
SE mean = 0.387
95% CI = (3.325-4.875)

QUESTION: Is it plausible that mu = 7, where mu is the population mean for all Floridian Student? Explain.
I'm thinking yes, because confdence interval is an estimate of population proportion, and mu is the actual population mean. If this is true, then since we only have 95% confidence, mu could equal 7 because we have 5% that our estimates are incorrect and not between the interval. Yet, if the interval doesn't have 7 in it, how can this be true. I'm confused to this concept.

As always, the help is highly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fear_of_Math said:
Hey ladies and gents,
I have a question that I'm not fully getting.

An FL Student Survey reprts the results for responses on the number of times a week the subject reads a newspaper:

Variable : news
n = 60
mean = 4.1
standard deviation = 3.0
SE mean = 0.387
95% CI = (3.325-4.875)

QUESTION: Is it plausible that mu = 7, where mu is the population mean for all Floridian Student? Explain.
I'm thinking yes, because confdence interval is an estimate of population proportion, and mu is the actual population mean. If this is true, then since we only have 95% confidence, mu could equal 7 because we have 5% that our estimates are incorrect and not between the interval. Yet, if the interval doesn't have 7 in it, how can this be true. I'm confused to this concept.

As always, the help is highly appreciated!

I haven't checked the calculations, so I'm basing this response on the assumption that the endpoints of the interval were correctly calculated.

This interval is an estimate of the population mean , not the proportion as your first sentence states (I'll assume that was a typo). Based on this interval, is it likely that \mu = 7? No, it isn't, since 7 is not located in the interval.

Could the true mean be 7? Yes, but it isn't likely to be, for the reason stated above.
 
Gracias!
And yes, meant to say mean, but it was 1 in the morning...
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
65
Views
13K
Back
Top