MHB Relative Variance: Calories vs Sugar

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relative Variance
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the relative variance between calories and sugar in a product using the coefficient of variation (CV). The calculated CV for calories is 49%, while for sugar, it is 57.77%. This indicates that sugar has a higher relative variance compared to calories, contrary to the initial assumption. A clarification was made regarding the terminology, emphasizing the importance of using "standard deviation" instead of "standard variation." Overall, the conclusion is that the variability in sugar content is greater than that of calories.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

Suppose that we calculate the calories and the quantity of sugar at the package of a product. For the calories we have mean value $10$ and standard variation $4,90$. For the quantity of sugar we have corresponding values $5,85$ and $3,38$, respectively. (Use CV). I want to find the relative variance between the calories and the quantity of sugar.

I have thought the following:

$$CV_{\text{cal}}=\frac{4,90}{10} 100%=49%$$
$$CV_{\text{sug}}=\frac{3,38}{5,85} 100%=57,77%$$

So the calories have higher relative variance inrelation to the quantity of sugar.
Am I right? Or have I done something wrong? (Thinking)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
evinda said:
Suppose that we calculate the calories and the quantity of sugar at the package of a product. For the calories we have mean value $10$ and standard variation $4,90$. For the quantity of sugar we have corresponding values $5,85$ and $3,38$, respectively. (Use CV). I want to find the relative variance between the calories and the quantity of sugar.

I have thought the following:

$$CV_{\text{cal}}=\frac{4,90}{10} 100%=49%$$
$$CV_{\text{sug}}=\frac{3,38}{5,85} 100%=57,77%$$

So the calories have higher relative variance inrelation to the quantity of sugar.
Am I right? Or have I done something wrong? (Thinking)

Hey evinda!

I'm not aware of anything called 'standard variation'.
Do you mean 'standard deviation', or do you mean 'variance'? 🤔

Either way, CV is based on 'standard deviation', so if that is what you have, it's fine.
Otherwise we need to take the square root first.

It doesn't really matter for the comparison though.
But it's the other way around isn't it?
That is, the relative variability (CV) of the sugar quantity is higher. 🤔
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
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...
Back
Top