Gaussian Error Propagation Praktikum
Contents |
same results as Monte Carlo error propagation division Simulation provided that the relative error (i.e.
Error Propagation Calculator
the variation coefficient, standard deviation divided by the mean) is error propagation physics below 20% (Ciroth 2001). This condition is checked during the calculation; if the variation coefficient is
Error Propagation Chemistry
found to be higher during the calculation, a warning message is issued together with the calculation results. To use approximation for uncertainty calculation, you can edit settings for the calculation in the "Preferences" under error propagation square root "Settings for calculation methods", and change the default entry use uncertainty calculation to true. Note that you can use only the sequential methods for the calculation. As default uncertainty approximation is inactive. Retrieved from "http://www.openlca.org/documentation/index.php/Gaussian_error_propagation_formulas." Personal tools Log in Namespaces Page Discussion Variants Views Read View source View history Actions Search openLCA help menu Beginners guide Advanced users guide Case studies Developers guide openLCA Website openLCA Project Converter Network download Resources Forum Contact us Toolbox What links here Related changes Special pages Printable version Permanent link This page was last modified on 24 May 2013, at 14:21. Disclaimers
more common than the rates (one time in twenty and one time in four hundred) predicted by the Gaussian, or
Error Propagation Reciprocal
"normal" error distribution. As you recall, we justified the whole least-squares
Error Propagation Inverse
approach by the fact that it gives the most likely set of answers, if the distribution of propagated error calculus random errors is Gaussian. The official reason why people always assume a Gaussian error distribution goes back to something called the Central Limit Theorem. The Central Limit Theorem http://www.openlca.org/documentation/index.php/Gaussian_error_propagation_formulas. says that whenever a measurement is subject to a very large number of very small errors, the probability distribution for the total error is driven toward the Gaussian distribution. This is true regardless of the form of the original probability distributions of the individual errors. A proof - and it is a pretty one - can be https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Stetson/Stetson3_2.html found in any book on the theory of statistics. The real reason why people always assume a Gaussian error distribution is that, having made that assumption, we can then easily derive (and have derived!) exact mathematical formulae which allow us to compute directly the "best" values for the unknown parameters. This is not necessarily possible for other probability distributions. What would happen if, for instance, the error distribution for your data were not Gaussian, but Lorentzian, With the Gaussian, when you go to maximize the likelihood you discover that you must minimize the sum of the squares of the residuals. This leads to a very simple and straightforward set of simultaneous linear equations. With the Lorentz function, you get Try differentiating the right side of this equation with respect to each of the unknown parameters, and see where it gets you. Pretending that the error distribution is Gaussian even if it isn't makes life a lot simpler. The fact is, with real data you don't know what th
be down. Please try the request again. Your cache administrator is webmaster. Generated Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:00:08 GMT by s_ac5 (squid/3.5.20)
be down. Please try the request again. Your cache administrator is webmaster. Generated Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:00:08 GMT by s_ac5 (squid/3.5.20)