Re: Statistics Question
- From: David in NYC <sorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:47:04 GMT
"Don McC" <DonMcC@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Q8SdnXkOcNKAVGrZnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
"David in NYC" <sorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> queries:
You are trying to estimate the *discrete* binomial distribution
with the *continuous* normal distribution.
On a continuous distribution, 16 runs from 15.5 to 16.5,
so you want the probability of 16.5 or fewer heads.
z = (20 - 16.5) / SQRT (.5 * .5 * 40) = 1.107; p. = .134
or .5 - (16.5 / 40) / .079 = 1.107; p. = .134 QED
So using 16.5 as the upper limit of 16 on a continuous
distribution yields a much more accurate estimate of the
actual discrete binomial probability.
--
Don
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are much more pliable.
~ Mark Twain
Awesome, thanks. (Thanks also to Gerry for the point about sample
sizes). Just seeing how to get .134 through the continuous distribution
is a big boon (this has been driving me nuts).
So why do statisticians not always use the binomial distribution when
testing the proportion in a population? I am talking discrete
situations, e.g. testing if 25% of all Americans are smokers. I
understand that at larger sample sizes, the continuous distribution gets
more accurate, but why not just be 100% accurate? Is it because the
binomial distribution gets too calculation-intensive?
Thanks,
Dave
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Statistics Question
- From: Don McC
- Re: Statistics Question
- From: Realto Margarino
- Re: Statistics Question
- References:
- Statistics Question
- From: David in NYC
- Re: Statistics Question
- From: Don McC
- Statistics Question
- Prev by Date: Re: The Rose Award For 8-24-2006.
- Next by Date: Re: Statistics Question
- Previous by thread: Re: Statistics Question
- Next by thread: Re: Statistics Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|