Partial Differentiation Error Calculation
Contents |
with: (1) Functions of several variables. (2) Evaluation of partial derivatives, and the chain rules of differentiation. (3) Manipulation of summations in algebraic context. At
Error Propagation Formula Physics
this mathematical level our presentation can be briefer. We can dispense error propagation example with the tedious explanations and elaborations of previous chapters. 6.2 THE CHAIN RULE AND DETERMINATE ERRORS If error propagation calculator a result R = R(x,y,z) is calculated from a number of data quantities, x, y and z, then the relation: [6-1] ∂R ∂R ∂R dR = —— dx +
Error Propagation Calculus
—— dy + —— dz ∂x ∂y ∂z
holds. This is one of the "chain rules" of calculus. This equation has as many terms as there are variables. Then, if the fractional errors are small, the differentials dR, dx, dy and dz may be replaced by the absolute errors ΔR, Δx, Δy, and Δz, and written: [6-2]Error Propagation Chemistry
∂R ∂R ∂R ΔR ≈ —— Δx + —— Δy + —— Δz ∂x ∂y ∂z Strictly this is no longer an equality, but an approximation to DR, since the higher order terms in the Taylor expansion have been neglected. So long as the errors are of the order of a few percent or less, this will not matter. This equation is now an error propagation equation. [6-3] Finally, divide equation (6.2) by R: ΔR x ∂R Δx y ∂R Δy z ∂R Δz —— = —————+——— ——+————— R R ∂x x R ∂y y R ∂z z
The factors of the form Δx/x, Δy/y, etc are relative (fractional) errors. This equation shows how the errors in the result depend on the errors in the data. Eq. 6.2 and 6.3 are called the standard form error equations. They are also called determinate error equations, because they are strictly valid for determinate errors (not indeterminate errors). [We'll get to indeterminate errors soon.] The coefficients in Eq. 6.3 of the fractThe approach to uncertainty analysis that has been followed up to this point in the discussion has been what is called a top-down approach. Uncertainty components are estimated from error propagation excel direct repetitions of the measurement result. To contrast this with a
Error Propagation Square Root
propagation of error approach, consider the simple example where we estimate the area of a rectangle from error propagation inverse replicate measurements of length and width. The area $$ area = length \cdot width $$ can be computed from each replicate. The standard deviation of the reported area https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/errorman/calculus.htm is estimated directly from the replicates of area. Advantages of top-down approach This approach has the following advantages: proper treatment of covariances between measurements of length and width proper treatment of unsuspected sources of error that would emerge if measurements covered a range of operating conditions and a sufficiently long time period independence from propagation of error http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/mpc/section5/mpc55.htm model Propagation of error approach combines estimates from individual auxiliary measurements The formal propagation of error approach is to compute: standard deviation from the length measurements standard deviation from the width measurements and combine the two into a standard deviation for area using the approximation for products of two variables (ignoring a possible covariance between length and width), $$ s_{area} = \sqrt{width^2 \cdot s_{length}^2 + length^2 \cdot s_{width}^2} $$ Exact formula Goodman (1960) derived an exact formula for the variance between two products. Given two random variables, \(x\) and \(y\) (correspond to width and length in the above approximate formula), the exact formula for the variance is: $$ V(\bar{x} \bar{y}) = \frac{1}{n} \left[ X^2 V(y) + Y^2 V(x) + 2XYE_{11} + 2X\frac{E_{12}}{n} + 2Y\frac{E_{21}}{n} + \frac{V(x) V(y)}{n} + \frac{Cov((\Delta x)^2, (\Delta y)^2) -E_{11}^2 }{n^2} \right] $$ with \(X = E(x)\) and \(Y = E(y)\) (corresponds to width and length, respectively, in the approximate formula) \(V(x)\) is the variance of \(x\) and \(V(y)\) is the variance \(y\)
or more quantities, each with their individual uncertainties, and then combine the information from these quantities in order to come up with a final result of our experiment. How can you state your answer for the combined result of these measurements and http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/labs/error/e2.htm their uncertainties scientifically? The answer to this fairly common question depends on how the individual measurements are combined in the result. We will treat each case separately: Addition of measured quantities If you have measured values for the quantities X, Y, and Z, with uncertainties dX, dY, and dZ, and your final result, R, is the sum or difference of these quantities, then the uncertainty dR is: Here the upper equation error propagation is an approximation that can also serve as an upper bound for the error. Please note that the rule is the same for addition and subtraction of quantities. Example: Suppose we have measured the starting position as x1 = 9.3+-0.2 m and the finishing position as x2 = 14.4+-0.3 m. Then the displacement is: Dx = x2-x1 = 14.4 m - 9.3 m = 5.1 m and the error in the displacement is: partial differentiation error (0.22 + 0.32)1/2 m = 0.36 m Multiplication of measured quantities In the same way as for sums and differences, we can also state the result for the case of multiplication and division: Again the upper line is an approximation and the lower line is the exact result for independent random uncertainties in the individual variables. And again please note that for the purpose of error calculation there is no difference between multiplication and division. Example: We have measured a displacement of x = 5.1+-0.4 m during a time of t = 0.4+-0.1 s. What is the average velocity and the error in the average velocity? v = x / t = 5.1 m / 0.4 s = 12.75 m/s and the uncertainty in the velocity is: dv = |v| [ (dx/x)2 + (dt/t)2 ]1/2 = 12.75 m/s [(0.4/5.1)2 + (0.1/0.4)2]1/2 = 3.34 m/s Multiplication with a constant What if you have measured the uncertainty in an observable X, and you need to multiply it with a constant that is known exactly? What is the error then? This is easy: just multiply the error in X with the absolute value of the constant, and this will give you the error in R: If you compare this to the above rule for multiplication of two qua