Re: Underestimated stats

To: CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM
Subject: Re: Underestimated stats
From: Bob Wheeler <bwheeler@ECHIP.COM>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 17:33:49 -0500
Organization: ECHIP
References: <797nu5$9vl$1@brokaw.wa.com>
Reply-To: Bob Wheeler <bwheeler@ECHIP.COM>
Xref: paladin.american.edu bit.listserv.calc-ti:27827

Hint: if the units are inches, so that the data is
6 in, 7 in, etc. What are the units of 1.66 ?

--
Bob Wheeler --- (Reply to: bwheeler@echip.com)
        ECHIP, Inc.

John C wrote:
>
> I have a question.
>
> Why does the TI-83 under estimate the standard dev. for a short list of
> numbers such as: 6, 7, 8, 9,?
>
> I get a sample dev. of 1.29, and a pop. dev. of 1.12, but hand calculated
> the sample dev. is 1.66.
>
> How can I improve the accuracy of the TI-83 when calculating stats.?
>
> Thanks,
> John

Follow-Ups:

Re: Underestimated stats

From: Dick Smith <dick@RISCTEX.DEMON.CO.UK>

References:

Underestimated stats

From: John C <jcole@HALCYON.COM>