Standard deviation as a percent?

Click For Summary
To calculate the standard deviation as a percentage of the mean for the sample space of 2, 3, and 5, the mean is determined to be 3.33. The standard deviation is calculated to be approximately 1.24722 after correcting an earlier miscalculation. To find the percentage, the formula 100(1.24722/3.33) is used. The range within one standard deviation from the mean is between 2.086 and 4.581, with only the value 3 falling within this range. Consequently, about 33.3% of the sample is within one standard deviation of the mean.
zeromodz
Messages
244
Reaction score
0
Say if I have a sample space 2,3, and 5. I want to find by what percent points deviate from the mean. So I would take the standard deviation as follows.

2+3+5 / 3 = 3.33

(2-3.33)^2 + (3-3.33)^2 + (5-3.33)^2 / 3 = 1.55

(1.55)^(1/2) = 0.775

So we get a standard deviation of 0.775. So how do I turn the standard deviation into a plus or minus percentage?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Step 1: √1.55555 = 1.25
Step 2: 100(1.25/3.33)
 
It's important that you say that the three points, 2, 3, and 5 are equally likely results. That is implied by your calculation of the mean = (2+3+5)/3, where the three points each have probability 1/3 of occurring.

As @mathman points out, your calculation of the standard deviation is wrong. You divided by 2 instead of taking the square root. The correct value is 1.24722.

You want to know what percentage of a sample will be within 1 standard deviation of the mean. That is between 3.33333 - 1.24722 and 3.33333 + 1.24722. (between 2.086 and 4.581. Only the results X=3 are in that range. That probability is 1/3 = 33.3%
 
Last edited:
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 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K