Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Referring to Exercise 94, develop a large-sample confidence interval formula for\({\mu _1} - {\mu _2}\). Calculate the interval for the data given there using a confidence level of 95 %.

Short Answer

Expert verified

\(\begin{array}{l}{{\hat \mu }_1} - {{\hat \mu }_2} \pm {z_{\alpha /2}} \cdot \sqrt {\frac{{{{\hat \mu }_1}}}{m} + \frac{{{{\hat \mu }_2}}}{n}} \\( - 1.29, - 0.59)\end{array}\)

Step by step solution

01

Step 1: To Calculate the interval for the data given there using a confidence level of 95 %.

Proposition: For a random variable X with Poisson distribution with parameter\(\mu > 0\), the following is true

\(E(X) = V(X) = \mu .\)

As mentioned,

\(V(\bar X) = \frac{\mu }{n}.\)

The standard deviation for \(\bar X - \bar Y\)can be computed as

\(\begin{array}{l}{\sigma _{\bar X - \bar Y}} = \sqrt {V(\bar X - \bar Y)} = \sqrt {V(\bar X) + V(\bar Y)} \\ = \sqrt {\frac{{{\mu _1}}}{m} + \frac{{{\mu _2}}}{n}} .\end{array}\)

To form a test statistic, the standard deviation needs to be estimated. First estimate \({\mu _1}\) and\({\mu _2}\), as usual, with

\(\begin{array}{l}{{\hat \mu }_1} = \bar X;\\{{\hat \mu }_2} = \bar Y;\end{array}\)

This yields test statistic with standard normal distribution (for large m and n)

\(Z = \frac{{\bar X - \bar Y}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{{{\hat \mu }_1}}}{m} + \frac{{{{\hat \mu }_2}}}{n}} }}\)

The confidence interval for \({\mu _1} - {\mu _2}\)

can be obtained from

\(P\left( { - {z_{\alpha /2}} \le Z \le {z_{\alpha /2}}} \right) = 1 - \alpha \)

which with transformations becomes

\({\hat \mu _1} - {\hat \mu _2} \pm {z_{\alpha /2}} \cdot \sqrt {\frac{{{{\hat \mu }_1}}}{m} + \frac{{{{\hat \mu }_2}}}{n}} \)

Remember that \(\bar x = {\hat \mu _1}\) and\(\bar y = {\hat \mu _2}\).

The accompanying table summarize the data to perform this test.

02

Final proof

The sample mean for the number of plants in the region 1 is

\(\bar x = {\hat \lambda _1} = \frac{1}{{125}} \cdot (0 + 40 + 56 + \ldots + 7) = 1.616,\)

and for the region is

\(\bar y = {\hat \lambda _2} = \frac{1}{{140}} \cdot (0 + 25 + 60 + \ldots + 7) = 2.557.\)

Thus, the 95 % confidence interval \(\left( {\alpha = 0.05,{z_{\alpha /2}} = 1.96} \right)\) is

\(\begin{array}{l}1.616 - 2.557 - 1.96 \cdot \sqrt {\frac{{1.616}}{{30}} + \frac{{2.557}}{{30}}} ,1.616 - 2.557 + 1.96 \cdot \sqrt {\frac{{1.616}}{{30}} + \frac{{2.557}}{{30}}} \\ = ( - 0.94 - 1.96 \cdot 0.177, - 0.94 + 1.96 \cdot 0.177)\\ = ( - 1.29, - 0.59).\end{array}\)

Finally we get,

\(\begin{array}{l}{{\hat \mu }_1} - {{\hat \mu }_2} \pm {z_{\alpha /2}} \cdot \sqrt {\frac{{{{\hat \mu }_1}}}{m} + \frac{{{{\hat \mu }_2}}}{n}} \\( - 1.29, - 0.59)\end{array}\)

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

How does energy intake compare to energy expenditure? One aspect of this issue was considered in the article โ€œMeasurement of Total Energy Expenditure by the Doubly Labelled Water Method in Professional Soccer Playersโ€ (J. of Sports Sciences, 2002: 391โ€“397), which contained the accompanying data (MJ/day).

Test to see whether there is a significant difference between intake and expenditure. Does the conclusion depend on whether a significance level of .05, .01, or .001 is used?

The article "The Influence of Corrosion Inhibitor and Surface Abrasion on the Failure of Aluminum-Wired Twist-On Connections" (IEEE Trans. on Components, Hybrids, and Manuf. Tech., 1984: 20-25) reported data on potential drop measurements for one sample of connectors wired with alloy aluminum and another sample wired with EC aluminum. Does the accompanying SAS output suggest that the true average potential drop for alloy connections (type 1) is higher than that wfor EC connections (as stated in the article)? Carry out the appropriate test using a significance level of .01. In reaching your conclusion, what type of error might you have committed?

(Note: SAS reports the\(P\)-value for a two-tailed test.)

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{ Type }&{}&N&{ Mean }&{ Std Dev }&{ Std Error }\\1&{20}&{17.49900000}&{0.55012821}&{0.12301241}&{}\\2&{20}&{16.90000000}&{0.48998389}&{0.10956373}&{}\\{}&{ Variances }&T&{ DF }&{Prob > |T|}&{}\\{ Unequal }&{3.6362}&{37.5}&{0.0008}&{}&{}\\{}&{ Equal }&{3.6362}&{38.0}&{0.0008}&{}\end{array}\)

The accompanying summary data on compression strength (lb) for \({\bf{12 \times 10 \times 8}}\)in. boxes appeared in the article "Compression of Single-Wall Corrugated Shipping Containers Using Fixed and Floating Test Platens" (J. Testing and Evaluation, 1992: 318-320). The authors stated that "the difference between the compression strength using fixed and floating platen method was found to be small compared to normal variation in compression strength between identical boxes." Do you agree? Is your analysis predicated on any assumptions?

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{ Method }&{\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{ Sample }\\{ Size }\end{array}}&{\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{ Sample }\\{ Mean }\end{array}}&{\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{ Sample }\\{ SD }\end{array}}\\{ Fixed }&{10}&{807}&{27}\\{ Floating }&{10}&{757}&{41}\\{}&{}&{}&{}\end{array}\)

The degenerative disease osteoarthritis most frequently affects weight-bearing joints such as the knee. The article "Evidence of Mechanical Load Redistribution at the Knee Joint in the Elderly When Ascending Stairs and Ramps" (Annals of Biomed. Engr., \(2008: 467 - 476\)) presented the following summary data on stance duration (ms) for samples of both older and younger adults.

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}{Age\;\;\;\;\;\;\;Sample Size\;\;Sample Mean\;\;Sample SD}\\{\;Older\;\;\;\;\;28\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;801\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;117}\\{Younger\;16\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;780\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;72}\end{array}\)

Assume that both stance duration distributions are normal.

a. Calculate and interpret a\(99\% \)CI for true average stance duration among elderly individuals.

b. Carry out a test of hypotheses at significance level\(.05\)to decide whether true average stance duration is larger among elderly individuals than among younger individuals.

The article "'The Effects of a Low-Fat, Plant-Based Dietary Intervention on Body Weight, Metabolism, and Insulin Sensitivity in Postmenopausal Women" (Amer. J. of Med., \(2005: 991 - 997\)) reported on the results of an experiment in which half of the individuals in a group of\(64\)postmenopausal overweight women were randomly assigned to a particular vegan diet, and the other half received a diet based on National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines. The sample mean decrease in body weight for those on the vegan diet was\(5.8\;kg\), and the sample SD was\(3.2\), whereas for those on the control diet, the sample mean weight loss and standard deviation were\(3.8\)and\(2.8\), respectively. Does it appear the true average weight loss for the vegan diet exceeds that for the control diet by more than\(1\;kg\)? Carry out an appropriate test of hypotheses at significance level .05.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free