Lecture1 Introduction 2017
Lecture1 Introduction 2017
statistics
Lecture 2.
Introduction
● Historical background
Statistics
graphical numerical
●Probability of a „tail”
●Certain combination of cards held in one hand
Paris, France
n
n k n k
(a b)
n
a b
k 0 k
Newton’s binomial
Probability and statistics. lecture 2 9
Pascal’s Triangle
Binomial coefficients (read „n choose k”)
0
n0 1
0
1 1 n n!
n 1 1 1
0 1
k (n k ) !k !
2 2 2
n2 1 2 1
0 1 2
3 3 3 3
n3 1 3 3 1
0 1 2 3
4 4 4 4 4
n4 1 4 6 4 1
0 1 2 3 4
5 5 5 5 5 5
n5 1 5 10 10 5 1
0 1 2 3 4 5
6 6 6 6 6 6 6
n6 1 6 15 20 15 6 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
n=0
1
n=1
1 + 1
1 2 1 n=2
1 3 3 1 n=3
1 4 6 4 1 n=4
1 5 10 10 5 1 n=5
1 6 15 20 15 6 1 n=6
Touluse, France
Goettingen, Germany
University Professor
QUANTITATIVE, QUALITATIVE,
NUMERICAL CATEGORIAL
Examples: Examples:
● Set of people Sex
● Age Marital status
● Height
● Salary
{e1, e2 , }
X : R
X (ei ) xi R
Examples:
1) Coin toss: event ‘head’ takes a value of 1; event ‘tails’ - 0.
2) Products: event ‘failure’ - 0, well-performing – 1
3) Dice: ‘1’ – 1, ‘2’ – 2 etc.…
4) Interval [a, b]– a choice of a point of a coordinate ‘x’ is attributed
a value, e.g. sin2(3x+17) etc. .…
Random variable
Discreet Continuous
• Toss of a coin
• Transmission errors • Electrical current, I
• Faulty elements on a production • Temperature, T
line • Pressure, p
• A number of connections coming
in 5 minutes
x Number of Frequency
outcomes
1 3 3/23 = 0,1304
2 5 5/23 = 0,2174
3 10 10/23 = 0,4348
4 4 4/23 = 0,1739
5 1 1/23 = 0,0435
Sum: 23 1,0000
PIE chart
1 2 3 4 5
1 0,13043478 4%
2 0,2173913
13%
17%
3 0,43 22%
4 0,17391
5 0,04347826 44%
graf1
Columnar plot
1 0,13043478 0,45
0,4
2 0,2173913 0,35
3 0,43 0,3
0,25
Serie1
4 0,17391 0,2
0,15
5 0,04347826
0,1
0,05
0
1 2 3 4 5
3 klasy
16
14
12
Częstość bezwględna
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 8 14 20
x
12 klas
6
Częstość bezwzględna
0
0 2 3,5 5 6,5 8 9,5 11 12,5 14 15,5 17 18,5 20
35 klas
6
Częstość bezwzględna
0
0 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7 7,5 8 8,5 9 9,5 10 10,5 11 11,5 12 12,5 13 13,5 14 14,5 15 15,5 16 16,5 17 17,5 18 18,5 19 19,5
k= 1+ 3,3log10 n
In our case:
6 klas (optymalnie)
0,3
0,25
0,2
Częstość względna
0,15
0,1
0,05
0
0 2 5 8 11 14 17 20
(Source:stormdebris.net/Math_Forecasting.html)
Problem description
Example: Suppose that an engineer is designing a nylon connector
to be used in an automotive engine application. The engineer is
considering establishing the design specification on wall thickness
at 3/32 inch but is somewhat uncertain about the effect of this
decision on the connector pull-off force. If the pull-off force is too
low, the connector may fail when it is installed in an engine.
Probability and statistics. lecture 2 32
How to solve an engineering problem?
Proposed model
A convenient way to think of a random variable, say X, that
represents a measurement, is by using the model
constant disturbance
The constant remains the same with every measurement, but small
changes in the environment, test equipment, differences in the
individual parts themselves, and so forth change the value of
disturbance. If there were no disturbances, X would always be equal
to the constant . However, this never happens in the real world, so
the actual measurements X exhibit variability. We often need to
describe, quantify and ultimately reduce variability.
Probability and statistics. lecture 2 34
How to solve an engineering problem?
Experiments
Figure 1-2 presents a dot diagram of these data. The dot diagram is a very useful
plot for displaying a small body of data—say, up to about 20 observations. This plot
allows us to see easily two features of the data; the location, or the middle, and the
scatter or variability. When the number of observations is small, it is usually
difficult to identify any specific patterns in the variability, although the dot diagram is
a convenient way to see any unusual data features.
Model modification
The need for statistical thinking arises often in the solution of engineering problems.
Consider the engineer designing the connector. From testing the prototypes, he knows
that the average pull-off force is 13.0 pounds. However, he thinks that this may be too low for
the intended application, so he decides to consider an alternative design with a greater
wall thickness, 1/8 inch. Eight prototypes of this design are built, and the observed
pull-off force measurements are 12.9, 13.7, 12.8, 13.9, 14.2, 13.2, 13.5, and 13.1.
Results for both samples are plotted as dot diagrams in Fig. 1-3.
This display gives the impression that increasing the wall thickness has led to an
increase in pull-off force.
• How do we know that another sample of prototypes will not give different
results?
• If we use the test results obtained so far to conclude that increasing the wall
thickness increases the strength, what risks are associated with this decision?
• Is it possible that the apparent increase in pull-off force observed in the thicker
prototypes is only due to the inherent variability in the system and that
increasing the thickness of the part (and its cost) really has no effect on the
pull-off force?