Standard deviation of a dice roll?

Click For Summary
To find the standard deviation of a 50-sided die, calculate the first moment (mean) as (n+1)/2 and the second moment as (n+1)(2n+1)/6. The variance is determined by subtracting the square of the first moment from the second moment. An alternative formula for variance is var(X) = E[X^2] - E[X]^2. Using these calculations will yield the exact standard deviation without needing to subtract the mean from each possible value.
moonman239
Messages
276
Reaction score
0
Let's say I have a big, 50-sided die, with values ranging from 1-50. I want to find the exact standard deviation of the dice roll by hand. I would like to avoid subtracting the mean from each possible value, if at all possible.

How do I do that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The most direct way is to get the averages of the numbers (first moment) and of the squares (second moment). The variance is the second moment minus the square of the first moment. The moments are (n+1)/2 and (n+1)(2n+1)/6 assuming a fair die. (Your n=50).
 
An alternative formula for the variance (the square of the s.d.) is \mbox{var}(X)=E[X^2]-E[X]^2. The derivation can be found on wikipedia. Use the formulas provided by mathman above to find the value.
 
dalcde said:
An alternative formula for the variance (the square of the s.d.) is \mbox{var}(X)=E[X^2]-E[X]^2. The derivation can be found on wikipedia. Use the formulas provided by mathman above to find the value.
Your formula is exactly what I posted in words.
 
Yes, but I found the word formula a bit difficult to comprehend.
 
The variance is the second moment minus the square of the first moment.

Looks plain enough to me.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
6K