home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18 / NN_1992_18.iso / spool / sci / math / stat / 1668 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1992-08-16  |  1.2 KB  |  31 lines
  1. Newsgroups: sci.math.stat
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!cc-server4.massey.ac.nz!TMoore@massey.ac.nz
  3. From: news@massey.ac.nz (USENET News System)
  4. Subject: Re: Fwd: Standard Deviation.
  5. Message-ID: <1992Aug16.225926.497@massey.ac.nz>
  6. Organization: Massey University
  7. References: <1992Aug14.172833.11844@cbfsb.cb.att.com> <seX2yRq00Uh785H2EB@andre <1992Aug14.231916.23479@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <1992Aug16.212245.27577@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au>
  8. Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 22:59:26 GMT
  9. Lines: 20
  10.  
  11. In article <1992Aug16.212245.27577@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au>, wskelly@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (William Skelly) writes:
  12. > 
  13. > This and other posting indicate that there is a relationship between
  14. > sample size and and estimated variance (of the population) which is
  15. > positive and always an underestimate.  What is the limit, or point
  16. > at which an increasing sample size no longer improve the estimate
  17. > of populations variance?
  18. > 
  19. When the sample size is equal to the population size (never for an
  20. infinite population).
  21.  
  22. > Can this be tested by taking samples of sample 
  23.  
  24. Yes but we can work out the theory so it isn't necessary.
  25.  
  26. > (the later sample
  27. > being elevated to the status of population)?
  28. > 
  29. ???
  30.  
  31.