Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
ah, but you see thats different. thats calculating the number of standarddeviations above the mean a certain number is.
which has nothing to do with this beauty
or your refutation that as n increases, sample standard deviation goes to zero.
ah, but you see thats different. thats calculating the number of standarddeviations above the mean a certain number is.
which has nothing to do with this beauty
The population standard deviation can be simply calculated as follows:
1) sum all values
2) sum the squares of all values
3) square the result from (1)
4) Divide (3) by N (the number of values)
5) Subtract (4) from (2)
6) Divide (5) by N
7) Take the square root of (6)
So, if we have 3, 6, and 7 as values:
1) = 3+6+7 = 16
2) = 9 + 36 + 49 = 94
3) = 16*16 = 256
4) = 256/3 = 85.33
5) = 94 - 85.33 = 8.67
6) = 8.67/3 = 2.89
7) = SQRT(2.89) = 1.7
1) sum all values
2) sum the squares of all values
3) square the result from (1)
4) Divide (3) by N (the number of values)
5) Subtract (4) from (2)
6) Divide (5) by N
7) Take the square root of (6)
So, if we have 3, 6, and 7 as values:
1) = 3+6+7 = 16
2) = 9 + 36 + 49 = 94
3) = 16*16 = 256
4) = 256/3 = 85.33
5) = 94 - 85.33 = 8.67
6) = 8.67/3 = 2.89
7) = SQRT(2.89) = 1.7
or your refutation that as n increases, sample standard deviation goes to zero.
Please respond to the post above this one.
Comment