Timeline for Chance of something being fixed
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 10, 2010 at 13:53 | vote | accept | Paul Reiners | ||
| May 7, 2010 at 19:12 | comment | added | Douglas Zare | I agree that a normal approximation is likely to be bad. If you must use a normal approximation, use $(-\infty,\frac 12)$ instead of $(-\infty, 0)$ because the count takes values in the integers. | |
| May 7, 2010 at 18:03 | comment | added | Dan Piponi | The number of successes before first failure is given by a geometric distribution. It's nothing like a normal distribution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_distribution | |
| May 7, 2010 at 16:30 | comment | added | Paul Reiners | Yes, that's a reasonable assumption. | |
| May 7, 2010 at 16:22 | comment | added | Gabriel Benamy | I was assuming that the number of times before the error occurs is roughly normally distributed - if the test is done enough times, a binomial distribution can be well-approximated by a normal distribution. $1-\text{Erf}\left[\sqrt{\frac{t\left(\frac{1}{n}-0\right)}{2 \frac{1}{n} \left(1-\frac{1}{n}\right)}}\right]$ is the equation for the probability of making a type-1 error (mistakenly assuming that we've fixed it). | |
| May 7, 2010 at 16:18 | comment | added | Dan Piponi | I'm not sure you can state a definitive answer like that without making more assumptions than the original asker states. What were your additional assumptions? | |
| May 7, 2010 at 16:10 | history | answered | Gabriel Benamy | CC BY-SA 2.5 |