An L.

asked • 11/07/13

For the standard normal distribution, find the area within one standard deviation of the mean--that is, the area between

For the standard normal distribution, find the area within one standard deviation of the mean--that is, the area between µ - σ and µ + σ.
 
For the standard normal distribution, find the area within 1.5  standard deviations of the mean--that is, the area between µ - 1.5σ and µ + 1.5σ.

1 Expert Answer

By:

Timothy S. answered • 11/07/13

Tutor
5 (9)

Will help you LOVE math, science, and computing!

Andre W.

tutor
The answer is independent of the values of µ and σ. For example, the area within one standard deviation of the mean will always be 0.6827 area units.
Also, when you say "there is no way to compute a function that produces an exact solution", that's technically not correct. You can define a function to be the integral of P(t) from 0 to x. (It's called the error function, erf(x).) Its Taylor series produces a solution as exact as you like it.
Report

11/07/13

Timothy S.

Andre. Yes, you can find not just "an", but many, infinite series to approximate the answer to this function--but it will never be exact. You may do it to arbitrary precision, but you may not come up with a finite series of elementary terms that exactly represent the quantity in question. There is a significant distinction here--which given your background I see you are well aware of branches of numerical, real, and complex analysis. 
 
Secondly, by defining a function as the integral of the standard distribution and then claiming that function is the analytical solution to the original function is, by definition, begging the question. Such logic is circulatory. It is as if I said that the Fresnel Integral is the solution to the indefinite integral of sin(t2). That is true, but definition, but the Fresnel integral is still not an "elementary" function. So to say that there is no way to compute a function that produces an exact solution is technically correct--the best kind of correct (if you are a futurama fan). But you are correct in that you may compute a function that produces an arbitrarily accurate solution.
 
I think in today's era it is important for our students to learn the distinction between families of functions that may be computed algebraically and those that must be computing algorithmically. Since many of these functions are of chief importance in the sciences, exposing them to the idea early on that math is not "a thing" but a language and a toolkit with restrictions on its expressiveness assists in their mastery of techniques while understanding engineering tolerance for a given set of constraints. Naturally, you are free to disagree on a pedagogical level, but this hardly seems the place to debate such matters when it is no longer relevant to the question. 
 
Since we are off topic anyway, I have been searching for a partner to write an interactive digital mathematics text leveraging technologies like mathbox--update for the 21st century if you will--would that interest you? 
Report

11/07/13

Andre W.

tutor
Hi Timothy. I’m a little confused by what you mean with “a function that produces an exact solution.” We all agree that functions such as exp(-t²) or sin(t²) do not have finite-form antiderivatives (indefinite integrals). Their antiderivatives are simply defined as power series which converge everywhere. Nothing circulatory about that. There are many other Riemann integrable functions that don’t have antiderivatives, including those functions that are not continuous, but piecewise continuous. I believe now this is what you mean.
When you spoke of an “exact solution” to the problem, I assumed you meant the area under the graph (definite integral), which is a positive real number. The total area has the “exact” value of 1 by construction. (The fact that the total area is finite, even though the function is positive everywhere, is remarkable in its own right.) However, most partial areas (all but a set of measure zero) do not have such an exact value. That’s because there is no such thing as an “exact” value of an irrational real number. Unlike integers or rationals, irrational numbers are only as accurate as you specify them to be, usually by sandwiching them between two rational numbers. (In fact, irrationals can be defined as limits of sequences of rationals.)
Back to this problem, there is no “exact area” within one standard deviation of the mean, the number 0.6827 is accurate within 4 significant figures.
Report

11/07/13

Timothy S.

That was precisely my point. Thank you for summing that up more clearly than I. Perhaps I misspoke when I used the term exact solution. Technically this is not solved via any sort of perturbation or weak-formulation, and is therefore an "exact" solution as you say. What I intend is to say closed-form solution, but due to the ambiguity in that (such as the erf(t) described above) I would refine to say, I suppose, "Those solutions defined by a finite set consisting of a finite number of algebraic polynomials" -- that should allow for piecewise formulations of the problem so long as it is not infinitely piecewise.
 
I am trying to exclude things such as erf(), Fresnel() kronecker / dirac distributions. And, though most tacitly accept them, even sin(), cos(), etc for those components of the domain that do not map to the subset of the range consisting of rational numbers. 
 
I realize that is a bit restrictive, and lord knows its pedantic, but I think it is an important distinction to be had between the bipartite sets of (that which may be solved by hand without use of iterative / recursive approximations) and (that which must be approximated to arrive at a numeric solution)
 
Granted even something as trivial as the square root of two fits into the second category, but I feel that is also an important point to make to students. It is quite common in calculus and in early statistics / distribution theory that I am asked "how can I solve this function?". Ignoring the semantics of the question, there is something to be said for what the word "solve" actually implies, and what the students often think it means. 
 
It seems to always surprise them when you begin to explain, they attempt to clarify, "yeah, but, like, how do you like *solve* it?",  and then the answer is "you cannot find a closed-form solution". I am unsure what to infer from the general lack of exposure to these topic in my generation... I am sure it does not reflect well upon the state of public education... but that aside, it is generally more pragmatic to direct them toward the resource that allows them to solve their problem while simultaneously hinting at the fact that this is one (of many) function(s) where their normal approach will fail--reassuring them that it is not their "fault" (inability to load the required algorithm for solution into their memory) that they cannot determine the answer. 
 
I had hoped to avoid getting into the gritty (yet beautiful) details of non-analytic functions--not because I do not find it interesting, but rather because I wished not to confuse the OP any more than already. Hopefully, though, OP will get this sorted from any of the methods we've provided thus far. 
Report

11/07/13

Still looking for help? Get the right answer, fast.

Ask a question for free

Get a free answer to a quick problem.
Most questions answered within 4 hours.

OR

Find an Online Tutor Now

Choose an expert and meet online. No packages or subscriptions, pay only for the time you need.