Math Is Fun Forum
  Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun.   Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

#1 2011-06-30 11:22:39

MathsIsFun
Administrator
Registered: 2005-01-21
Posts: 7,534

Normal Distribution

Made another page, what do you think?

Normal Distribution

Suggestions welcome.


"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  - Leon M. Lederman

Offline

#2 2011-06-30 16:08:55

bobbym
Administrator
From: Bumpkinland
Registered: 2009-04-12
Posts: 83,251

Re: Normal Distribution

Hi;

The Quincunx is nice! It is easy to understand so you are done.

About the skewed data, left and right skewed have a strange meaning. Left skewed means the tail is on the left, yours shows it the other way around.

I do not why it is like that in statistics, to me your viewpoint is more intuitive but

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewness

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook … stogr6.htm

A quick fix is change the word skewed to bunched. Which is probably better for what you are trying to show.


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

#3 2011-06-30 16:23:04

MathsIsFun
Administrator
Registered: 2005-01-21
Posts: 7,534

Re: Normal Distribution

"Bunched" sounds nice!


"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  - Leon M. Lederman

Offline

#4 2011-06-30 16:32:34

bobbym
Administrator
From: Bumpkinland
Registered: 2009-04-12
Posts: 83,251

Re: Normal Distribution

Hi;

Or batched ( batched? ), bunchy ( bunchy?) grouped, collected, condensed, conglomerated, amalgamated, aggregated, concentrated...

Better stick with bunched.


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

#5 2011-07-01 06:32:10

bob bundy
Moderator
Registered: 2010-06-20
Posts: 6,269

Re: Normal Distribution

hi MathsIsFun,

I love it.  I've posted the link to some teachers I know. 

Quincunx still running.  HHmmmmm!  smile:)

Bob


You cannot teach a man anything;  you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

Offline

#6 2011-07-02 21:49:02

robinsonov
Member
Registered: 2011-07-01
Posts: 6

Re: Normal Distribution

Hi there i am new to this forum, my question is how do i post my questions to the forum?

Thanks
Robinsonov

Offline

#7 2011-07-02 21:52:46

bobbym
Administrator
From: Bumpkinland
Registered: 2009-04-12
Posts: 83,251

Re: Normal Distribution

Hi robinsonov;

Welcome to the forum!

Go in the Help Me section and start a new thread there. Please read these guidelines.

http://www.mathisfunforum.com/viewtopic.php?id=14654


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

#8 2011-07-03 02:43:07

robinsonov
Member
Registered: 2011-07-01
Posts: 6

Re: Normal Distribution

Can someone help me with step by step solution to this decimal problem?
15/7         15 divided by 7

Thanks

Offline

#9 2011-07-03 03:00:34

bobbym
Administrator
From: Bumpkinland
Registered: 2009-04-12
Posts: 83,251

Re: Normal Distribution


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

#10 2011-07-09 02:45:15

robinsonov
Member
Registered: 2011-07-01
Posts: 6

Re: Normal Distribution

Hello there how are you guys doing?  i need more help with the solution to the below problems
Please if possible i would like to see the step by step solution to the problem.
Thanks
Robinsonov.

Convert the following fractions to decimals in   
1.0021=?

     __
1:201 =?

Offline

#11 2011-07-09 04:48:47

bobbym
Administrator
From: Bumpkinland
Registered: 2009-04-12
Posts: 83,251

Re: Normal Distribution

Hi robinsonov;

Please start your own thread from now on in "Help Me" that way you will get faster help.

Here is how I do it. Start with the obvious fraction.

Now you have to get a whole number over another whole number.
If you moved the decimal point in 1.0021 four places to the right
you would have 10021 Whatever you do to the top of the fraction you have to do to the bottom. So

You can now make sure that it is in lowest terms.


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

#12 2011-07-09 06:43:02

robinsonov
Member
Registered: 2011-07-01
Posts: 6

Re: Normal Distribution

Thanks  for your  kind effort.
bobbym

Offline

#13 2011-07-09 08:30:41

bobbym
Administrator
From: Bumpkinland
Registered: 2009-04-12
Posts: 83,251

Re: Normal Distribution

Hi;

For the second one you have to use a trick.

1:201 =? I am assuming you mean 1.20101010101...

1.2 = 6 / 5 so

Let's work with the .0010101010...

Say:

Multiply both sides by 1000.

The .01010101010... is just 10 x.

Solve for x.

So that is your answer.

I leave the checking to you.


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

#14 2011-07-09 08:36:50

robinsonov
Member
Registered: 2011-07-01
Posts: 6

Re: Normal Distribution

Thanks
bobbym

Offline

#15 2011-07-09 08:47:09

bobbym
Administrator
From: Bumpkinland
Registered: 2009-04-12
Posts: 83,251

Re: Normal Distribution

Hi robinsonov;

Your welcome. I thought the second question is a little bit passed where you are. Or maybe I am missing something obvious, anyway that is how I do it.


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB