Any maths / statistics whizzes here? Any maths / statistics whizzes here? - Page 2
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Posts 11 to 20 of 72
  1. #11

    Richer than sasguru

    DimPrawn is always on top

    DimPrawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Covid City
    Posts
    36,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AtW View Post
    Is this a gut feel or your expert opinion?
    My expert opinion is:

    what is statistically significant number?
    can they do the thing more than once?
    is the 0.4 constant every week?
    Does the 100% change as a sample?
    When you need the answer?
    Do I have to show my working out?
    Can I change my answer later?
    Where do I send the invoice to?

  2. #12

    Contractor Among Contractors

    Uncle Albert is NOT a disguised employee

    Uncle Albert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,073

    Default

    How many of the sample are contractors? I for one would have staff to do "the thing" on my behalf and on behalf of my company secretary and fellow shareholder.
    England's greatest sailor since Nelson lost the armada.

  3. #13

    Richer than sasguru

    DimPrawn is always on top

    DimPrawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Covid City
    Posts
    36,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scooterscot View Post
    You're a bit thick huh? That's why I like you, easy to entertain.
    Six Sigma - Wikipedia

  4. #14

    Double Godlike!

    ladymuck has reached the peak. Play again?

    ladymuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    11,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DimPrawn View Post
    My expert opinion is:

    what is statistically significant number?
    can they do the thing more than once?
    is the 0.4 constant every week?
    Does the 100% change as a sample?
    When you need the answer?
    Do I have to show my working out?
    Can I change my answer later?
    Where do I send the invoice to?
    Rookie mistake putting invoicing last

  5. #15

    Prof Cunning @ Oxford Uni

    WTFH has reached the peak. Play again?

    WTFH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    21,848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SimonMac View Post
    I am looking to see if I can extrapolate some numbers based on the information set I have.

    If a sample is 100% and each week 0.4% "do a thing", how long would it take on average for all (or at least a statistically significant number) the people to do "the thing", I assume it's not as simple as 100 / 0.4 = X number of weeks

    The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.
    I'm perfect, in a very specific and limited way.
    Hands... out infractions
    Face... the music
    Space... between the ears

  6. #16

    Respect my authoritah!

    NotAllThere is always on top

    NotAllThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Far away from HMRC
    Posts
    23,489

    Default

    I've subcontracted the question, to two of my sprogs and my dad. I don't do stats, because I have a degree in maths.

    Not heard from my dad yet. And sprog one has declared that he studied physics to avoid this type of problem.

    The other sprog (doing a degree in pharmaceutical engineering, where you really need to be good at stats - though I'm worried that she's enjoying working on this problem on a Friday night) has determined that the minimum number of weeks is 1/0.004 = 250 weeks. Trivial. Now we need to put in the figures for where we have duplication, and that involves a hypergeometric distribution.

    So far it looks like it'll be considerably more than 250 weeks to get a 90% chance of the entire population being covered.
    Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

  7. #17

    Contractor Among Contractors

    DealorNoDeal is NOT a disguised employee

    DealorNoDeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    I tweaked a program I'm working on, for random walks in asset prices, to test this out.

    1000 people
    Each week 0.4% (4 people), selected at random, do the thing.

    Running 1000 trials...

    After 250 weeks, 633 people have done the thing at least once
    After 500 weeks, 865 people
    After 1000 weeks, 982 people

    To reach 1000 people, with a reasonable confidence level, I had to extend the number of weeks to 4000.
    Last edited by DealorNoDeal; 17th April 2020 at 19:39.

  8. #18

    Double Godlike!

    ladymuck has reached the peak. Play again?

    ladymuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    11,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DealorNoDeal View Post
    I tweaked a program I'm working on, for random walks in asset prices, to test this out.

    1000 people
    Each week 0.4% (4 people), selected at random, do the thing.

    Running 1000 trials...

    After 250 weeks, 633 people have done the thing at least once
    After 500 weeks, 865 people
    After 1000 weeks, 982 people

    To reach 1000 people, with a reasonable confidence level, I had to extend the number of weeks to 4000.
    In your model could some people do the thing more than once and others not at all?

    Or does it assume that once done, the pool of people who need to do the thing is reduced?

  9. #19

    Godlike

    jamesbrown is a fount of knowledge

    jamesbrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    9,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SimonMac View Post
    I am looking to see if I can extrapolate some numbers based on the information set I have.

    If a sample is 100% and each week 0.4% "do a thing", how long would it take on average for all (or at least a statistically significant number) the people to do "the thing", I assume it's not as simple as 100 / 0.4 = X number of weeks
    Well, it would take [1-0.004]^n = 0.5 for 50% to have done that thing or n = log(0.5) / log(0.996) or n = 172.9399 weeks. Not sure what "average" or "statistically significant" means in this context, but choose something other than 0.5 and solve again.

    All this says is that the 0.4% of the people that did the thing last week and are no longer in the pool, so you're fishing from a smaller pond each week. If you mean something different, it will be different.
    Last edited by jamesbrown; 17th April 2020 at 22:29.

  10. #20

    Contractor Among Contractors

    DealorNoDeal is NOT a disguised employee

    DealorNoDeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ladymuck View Post
    In your model could some people do the thing more than once and others not at all?

    Or does it assume that once done, the pool of people who need to do the thing is reduced?
    I simulated a 1000-sided dice being rolled 4 times per week. So, any 4 numbers from 1-1000, could come up each week.

    After 250 weeks, on average, 663 numbers will have come up. After 500 weeks, 865 numbers etc.

    Of course, that may not have been what the OP meant.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •