Relative error and measurement precision

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating measurement precision in a programming exercise involving relative error in Python. The goal is to determine the correct amount of relative error on the measured x value to achieve a 1% precision on the computed y value, which represents the radius of a circle. The function used is based on the coordinates of the circle's center and a point on its circumference, with one coordinate being exact and the other having a relative error. Participants discuss the implications of using Taylor expansion to simplify the calculation of precision. The conversation emphasizes the relationship between relative error and the precision of measurements in the context of instrument selection.
mPlummers
Messages
12
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
I have a data point ##x_{true}##, without error. I also have a function ##f(x_{true})=y_{true}##. I have to obtain a simulated measurement, adding to this data point a relative error (and so i'll pass from ##x_{true}## to a ##x_{measurement}##). The goal is to find the amount of relative error to add to ##x_{true}## to obtain a measurement of ##y_{measurement}## with 1% precision.
Relevant Equations
Relative error: ##(y_{true}-y_{measurement})/y_{measurement}##
NOTE: this is a programming exercise (Python).
I started adding to ##x_{true}## an error related to a (for example) 10% relative error, obtaining ##x_{measurement}##. Then i computed ##y_{measurement}##. To find the precision, i calculated ##(y_{true}-y_{measurement})/y_{measurement}##. If it is correct, what i want to do is to use several relative error values, compute the precision and look for the closest to 1%.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If I understand the problem, your goal is to be able to produce y values with a 1% relative error. Your challenge is to find a distribution of x values that result in y values that satisfy this criterion.

Question: does the graph of f() have a reasonably constant slope in the neighborhood of ##(x_{true},y_{true})##. More specifically in the neighborhood where ##.99\ y_{true} < y < 1.01\ y_{true}##?
 
Yes, the goal is to find the correct amount of relative error on ##x_{meas}## to obtain a 1% precision on ##y_{meas}##. The teacher told us that this is the inverse problem of finding the right instrument (in terms of precision) depending on the relative error you want to obtain. The function is ##y=\sqrt{(x_{1}-x_{1,c})^{2}+(x_{2}-x_{2,c})^{2}}##, it returns the radius of a circle, given the center coordinates. One of the coordinate doesn't have any error, while the other one is the ##x## i mentioned in the first post. How can i calculate the precision? I used the same formula of relative error, but I'm not sure.
 
Last edited:
mPlummers said:
Yes, the goal is to find the correct amount of relative error on ##x_{meas}## to obtain a 1% precision on ##y_{meas}##. The teacher told us that this is the inverse problem of finding the right instrument (in terms of precision) depending on the relative error you want to obtain. The function is ##y=\sqrt{(x_{1}-x_{1,c})^{2}+(x_{2}-x_{2,c})^{2}}##, it returns the radius of a circle, given the center coordinates. One of the coordinate doesn't have any error, while the other one is the ##x## i mentioned in the first post. How can i calculate the precision? I used the same formula of relative error, but I'm not sure.
I assume you mean you are given the centre exactly and a circumferential point approximately. This is not quite the same as in post #1 since you now have two uncertain values... or is one coordinate of the point on the circumference known exactly too?
 
Exactly, one of the point coordinates has no error, while the other one has a relative error. That's why in the first post i simplified the problem from 2D to 1D . In the second post i wrote the real problem to show the function i have to use.
 
mPlummers said:
Exactly, one of the point coordinates has no error, while the other one has a relative error. That's why in the first post i simplified the problem from 2D to 1D . In the second post i wrote the real problem to show the function i have to use.
Ok.
Replace x2 in your expression for y with x2(1+ε). Apply a Taylor expansion to get it into the form ##\sqrt{(x_{1}-x_{1,c})^{2}+(x_{2}-x_{2,c})^{2}}(1+A\epsilon+...)##.
 
  • Like
Likes mPlummers
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
729
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K