Re: standard deviation and N-1
From: Dimitris (dimitris_at_dyn.unipg.it)
Date: 07/08/04
- Next message: Shrikantha S. Shastry: "Re: Infinity can not exist"
- Previous message: Ray Koopman: "Re: standard deviation and N-1"
- In reply to: Victoria Florsheim: "standard deviation and N-1"
- Next in thread: Rob Johnson: "Re: standard deviation and N-1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 8 Jul 2004 01:56:34 -0700
> In high school, I learned that the formula for standard deviation has n in
> the denominator, but in college the book has N-1 in the denominator. What
> is the reason for this?
Suppose sig^2_s the variance of your sample, and sig^2_t the true
variance
of the population.
Then it can be worked out that the sample variance, sig^2_s has an
average (over
an infinite amount of samples) equal to
sig^2_s = (N-1)/N sig^2_t
where N is the size of the sample and, as mentioned, sig^2_t is the
true
variance of the population.
You can work this out from the formula for sig^2_s, and from the fact
that
members within a sample are independent from each other.
Therefore, if, instead of sig^2_s, you take N/(N-1) sig^2_s, (using
the 'N-1' formula) you will have a quantity whose average over many
samples will be the true variance of the population.
(For a trivial case, suppose N=1. Then, obviously, sig^2_s will always
be 0 and this will not tell you a thing about the true variance of the
population.)
Bear in mind that this is exact only for *variances*, NOT for
*standard deviations* (their square roots). But, to a good
approximation, one can normally
carry it over to standard deviations.
Hope this helps,
Dimitris
- Next message: Shrikantha S. Shastry: "Re: Infinity can not exist"
- Previous message: Ray Koopman: "Re: standard deviation and N-1"
- In reply to: Victoria Florsheim: "standard deviation and N-1"
- Next in thread: Rob Johnson: "Re: standard deviation and N-1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|