MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Hi folks,

I plugged the following set of numbers into Excel:

[600 470 170 430 300]

I found the mean (394), summed the numbers, divided by 5 to get variance (21704). I then did the square root to find stdev (147.32).

Using Excel or Wolfram Alpha's variance and stdev function give me differnt numbers, variance 27130 and stdev 164.71 respectively. Why? I believe I am following the equation as listed on Wikipedia, my stat text book, and the following page:

What am I missing?

Thank you for any help you can give!

share|cite|improve this question

closed as off topic by Andrey Rekalo, Dmitri Pavlov, Tim Perutz, David Roberts, Yemon Choi Feb 4 '11 at 1:06

Questions on MathOverflow are expected to relate to research level mathematics within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Maybe… can help you. – Shai Covo Feb 4 '11 at 0:38
up vote 0 down vote accepted

The unbiased variance estimator normalizes by $n-1$, instead of $n$. This may be the difference you're seeing.

share|cite|improve this answer

You found the population standard deviation; Excel/Wolfram gave the sample standard deviation--the unbiased estimate of the population standard deviation when you have only a sample, not the entire population. Use "stdevp" to get the population standard deviation in Excel.

share|cite|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.