clear echo on %Solution to Problem 1 % %In this problem we are asked to analyze a set of data, %measurements of the diameter of particles using a %video microscope. This is a problem which occurs %fairly often in our laboratory! We have the data: dia=[51.1 52.9 54.2 52.3 46.7 49.0 54.3 54.1 49.1 53.9]; %which is the easy way of putting it into the computer. pause %For part a we are asked to compute the mean and an %unbiased estimate of the population standard deviation: n=length(dia) mean=sum(dia)/n variance=sum(dia.^2-mean^2)/(n-1) %Thus we have an estimate of the standard deviation: popsd=variance^0.5 pause %For part b we want the 95% confidence interval of the mean. %This is roughly the +- 2sigma interval, where we now use %the random error in the mean rather than the population sd: meansd=popsd/n^.5 interval=[mean-2*meansd,mean+2*meansd] pause %For part c we are asked to determine how many particles %we should look at to get a desired level of accuracy - a common %problem in experimental design! This is easily estimated from %the population standard deviation: nobs=((2*popsd)/(0.01*abs(mean)))^2 pause %For the final part there is no one right answer. In general it %doesn't make sense for us to reduce random error to a level %much smaller than systematic error, because there is relatively %little gain - the accuracy of the final answer is dominated by the %systematic error. On the other hand, you would probably want %random error not to be large with respect to systematic error - %unless, of course, you don't need all that accurate a result, or %unless the measurements are really difficult and expensive to do. %I would, in general, pick a number of observations which cuts %random error down so that it is somewhat less than systematic %error, if possible. Thus, I would probably use the number of %observations determined for part c, although the benefit from the %last 3/4 of these observations really doesn't improve our estimate %all that much. pause