Improving on Chebyshev's inequality with normal approximation












0














This problem comes from Suhov's and Kelbert's Probability and Statistics by Example I, worked example 1.6.2. It's not homework.



Let $Y_n$ be the number of spots shown cumulatively over $n$ throws of a standard six-sided die. The task is to calculate $n$ such that the following is guaranteed:



$mathbb{P}left( left|frac{Y_n}{n}-3.5right| > 0.1 right) leq 0.1$.



The authors arrive at approximately $n geq 2920$ using Chebyshev's inequality. I understand this part.



But then they note:



"Observe that using the normal approximation (the De Moivre-Laplace Theorem) yields a better lower bound: $n geq (1.96 times 10)^2 35/12 approx 794.$"



I tried approximating $Y_n$ with a Gaussian in the following way:



$mathbb{P}left( left| frac{Y_n-3.5n}{sqrt{n}sigma} right| > 0.1 frac{sqrt{n}}{sigma} right) approx 1- frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}int_{ frac{sqrt{n}}{10sigma}}^{ frac{sqrt{n}}{10sigma}} mathrm{d}y e^{-frac{y^2}{2}} $



but I don't know how to proceed from there and would be grateful for any help!






statistics







share|cite|improve this question





























    0














    This problem comes from Suhov's and Kelbert's Probability and Statistics by Example I, worked example 1.6.2. It's not homework.



    Let $Y_n$ be the number of spots shown cumulatively over $n$ throws of a standard six-sided die. The task is to calculate $n$ such that the following is guaranteed:



    $mathbb{P}left( left|frac{Y_n}{n}-3.5right| > 0.1 right) leq 0.1$.



    The authors arrive at approximately $n geq 2920$ using Chebyshev's inequality. I understand this part.



    But then they note:



    "Observe that using the normal approximation (the De Moivre-Laplace Theorem) yields a better lower bound: $n geq (1.96 times 10)^2 35/12 approx 794.$"



    I tried approximating $Y_n$ with a Gaussian in the following way:



    $mathbb{P}left( left| frac{Y_n-3.5n}{sqrt{n}sigma} right| > 0.1 frac{sqrt{n}}{sigma} right) approx 1- frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}int_{ frac{sqrt{n}}{10sigma}}^{ frac{sqrt{n}}{10sigma}} mathrm{d}y e^{-frac{y^2}{2}} $



    but I don't know how to proceed from there and would be grateful for any help!






    statistics







    share|cite|improve this question



























      0












      0








      0







      This problem comes from Suhov's and Kelbert's Probability and Statistics by Example I, worked example 1.6.2. It's not homework.



      Let $Y_n$ be the number of spots shown cumulatively over $n$ throws of a standard six-sided die. The task is to calculate $n$ such that the following is guaranteed:



      $mathbb{P}left( left|frac{Y_n}{n}-3.5right| > 0.1 right) leq 0.1$.



      The authors arrive at approximately $n geq 2920$ using Chebyshev's inequality. I understand this part.



      But then they note:



      "Observe that using the normal approximation (the De Moivre-Laplace Theorem) yields a better lower bound: $n geq (1.96 times 10)^2 35/12 approx 794.$"



      I tried approximating $Y_n$ with a Gaussian in the following way:



      $mathbb{P}left( left| frac{Y_n-3.5n}{sqrt{n}sigma} right| > 0.1 frac{sqrt{n}}{sigma} right) approx 1- frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}int_{ frac{sqrt{n}}{10sigma}}^{ frac{sqrt{n}}{10sigma}} mathrm{d}y e^{-frac{y^2}{2}} $



      but I don't know how to proceed from there and would be grateful for any help!






      statistics







      share|cite|improve this question















      This problem comes from Suhov's and Kelbert's Probability and Statistics by Example I, worked example 1.6.2. It's not homework.



      Let $Y_n$ be the number of spots shown cumulatively over $n$ throws of a standard six-sided die. The task is to calculate $n$ such that the following is guaranteed:



      $mathbb{P}left( left|frac{Y_n}{n}-3.5right| > 0.1 right) leq 0.1$.



      The authors arrive at approximately $n geq 2920$ using Chebyshev's inequality. I understand this part.



      But then they note:



      "Observe that using the normal approximation (the De Moivre-Laplace Theorem) yields a better lower bound: $n geq (1.96 times 10)^2 35/12 approx 794.$"



      I tried approximating $Y_n$ with a Gaussian in the following way:



      $mathbb{P}left( left| frac{Y_n-3.5n}{sqrt{n}sigma} right| > 0.1 frac{sqrt{n}}{sigma} right) approx 1- frac{1}{sqrt{2pi}}int_{ frac{sqrt{n}}{10sigma}}^{ frac{sqrt{n}}{10sigma}} mathrm{d}y e^{-frac{y^2}{2}} $



      but I don't know how to proceed from there and would be grateful for any help!






      statistics




      statistics






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited yesterday

























      asked 2 days ago









      dom_miketa

      796




      796






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          First of all, you're missing a factor $frac1{sqrt{2pi}}$ in the integral. Anyway, call $Phi(z)$ the CDF of a $N(0,1)$ r.v., you have to find $n$ such that
          $$Phileft(frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)-Phileft(-frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)=2Phileft(frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)-1ge 0.9,$$
          that is,
          $$Phileft(frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)ge0.95.$$
          This is equivalent to
          $$frac{sqrt n}{10sigma} ge Phi^{-1}(0.95)approx 1.96,$$
          so the approximate answer is
          $$nge 19.6^2 sigma^2,$$
          and the answer is reasonable if the bound for $n$ is large enough to use the normal approximation (it is also necessary to find the value of $sigma$).






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thanks! I gave it another go today after a few more exercises which showcased this kind of approximation and arrived at a similar conclusion, except I find that $Phi^-1(0.95) approx 1.65$ (eg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_normal_table). Am I reading the table wrong?
            – dom_miketa
            yesterday






          • 1




            Actually not. I did not went to the table the other day so I made a mistake. You're right. $Phi^{-1}(0.95)approx1.65$. It is $Phi^{-1}(0.975)$ that is $1.96$.
            – Alejandro Nasif Salum
            14 hours ago






          • 1




            That's everything sorted then. Thanks again and have a lovely holiday if you celebrate one. :)
            – dom_miketa
            11 hours ago











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3052317%2fimproving-on-chebyshevs-inequality-with-normal-approximation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1














          First of all, you're missing a factor $frac1{sqrt{2pi}}$ in the integral. Anyway, call $Phi(z)$ the CDF of a $N(0,1)$ r.v., you have to find $n$ such that
          $$Phileft(frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)-Phileft(-frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)=2Phileft(frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)-1ge 0.9,$$
          that is,
          $$Phileft(frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)ge0.95.$$
          This is equivalent to
          $$frac{sqrt n}{10sigma} ge Phi^{-1}(0.95)approx 1.96,$$
          so the approximate answer is
          $$nge 19.6^2 sigma^2,$$
          and the answer is reasonable if the bound for $n$ is large enough to use the normal approximation (it is also necessary to find the value of $sigma$).






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thanks! I gave it another go today after a few more exercises which showcased this kind of approximation and arrived at a similar conclusion, except I find that $Phi^-1(0.95) approx 1.65$ (eg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_normal_table). Am I reading the table wrong?
            – dom_miketa
            yesterday






          • 1




            Actually not. I did not went to the table the other day so I made a mistake. You're right. $Phi^{-1}(0.95)approx1.65$. It is $Phi^{-1}(0.975)$ that is $1.96$.
            – Alejandro Nasif Salum
            14 hours ago






          • 1




            That's everything sorted then. Thanks again and have a lovely holiday if you celebrate one. :)
            – dom_miketa
            11 hours ago
















          1














          First of all, you're missing a factor $frac1{sqrt{2pi}}$ in the integral. Anyway, call $Phi(z)$ the CDF of a $N(0,1)$ r.v., you have to find $n$ such that
          $$Phileft(frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)-Phileft(-frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)=2Phileft(frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)-1ge 0.9,$$
          that is,
          $$Phileft(frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)ge0.95.$$
          This is equivalent to
          $$frac{sqrt n}{10sigma} ge Phi^{-1}(0.95)approx 1.96,$$
          so the approximate answer is
          $$nge 19.6^2 sigma^2,$$
          and the answer is reasonable if the bound for $n$ is large enough to use the normal approximation (it is also necessary to find the value of $sigma$).






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Thanks! I gave it another go today after a few more exercises which showcased this kind of approximation and arrived at a similar conclusion, except I find that $Phi^-1(0.95) approx 1.65$ (eg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_normal_table). Am I reading the table wrong?
            – dom_miketa
            yesterday






          • 1




            Actually not. I did not went to the table the other day so I made a mistake. You're right. $Phi^{-1}(0.95)approx1.65$. It is $Phi^{-1}(0.975)$ that is $1.96$.
            – Alejandro Nasif Salum
            14 hours ago






          • 1




            That's everything sorted then. Thanks again and have a lovely holiday if you celebrate one. :)
            – dom_miketa
            11 hours ago














          1












          1








          1






          First of all, you're missing a factor $frac1{sqrt{2pi}}$ in the integral. Anyway, call $Phi(z)$ the CDF of a $N(0,1)$ r.v., you have to find $n$ such that
          $$Phileft(frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)-Phileft(-frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)=2Phileft(frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)-1ge 0.9,$$
          that is,
          $$Phileft(frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)ge0.95.$$
          This is equivalent to
          $$frac{sqrt n}{10sigma} ge Phi^{-1}(0.95)approx 1.96,$$
          so the approximate answer is
          $$nge 19.6^2 sigma^2,$$
          and the answer is reasonable if the bound for $n$ is large enough to use the normal approximation (it is also necessary to find the value of $sigma$).






          share|cite|improve this answer












          First of all, you're missing a factor $frac1{sqrt{2pi}}$ in the integral. Anyway, call $Phi(z)$ the CDF of a $N(0,1)$ r.v., you have to find $n$ such that
          $$Phileft(frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)-Phileft(-frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)=2Phileft(frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)-1ge 0.9,$$
          that is,
          $$Phileft(frac{sqrt n}{10sigma}right)ge0.95.$$
          This is equivalent to
          $$frac{sqrt n}{10sigma} ge Phi^{-1}(0.95)approx 1.96,$$
          so the approximate answer is
          $$nge 19.6^2 sigma^2,$$
          and the answer is reasonable if the bound for $n$ is large enough to use the normal approximation (it is also necessary to find the value of $sigma$).







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 2 days ago









          Alejandro Nasif Salum

          4,269118




          4,269118












          • Thanks! I gave it another go today after a few more exercises which showcased this kind of approximation and arrived at a similar conclusion, except I find that $Phi^-1(0.95) approx 1.65$ (eg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_normal_table). Am I reading the table wrong?
            – dom_miketa
            yesterday






          • 1




            Actually not. I did not went to the table the other day so I made a mistake. You're right. $Phi^{-1}(0.95)approx1.65$. It is $Phi^{-1}(0.975)$ that is $1.96$.
            – Alejandro Nasif Salum
            14 hours ago






          • 1




            That's everything sorted then. Thanks again and have a lovely holiday if you celebrate one. :)
            – dom_miketa
            11 hours ago


















          • Thanks! I gave it another go today after a few more exercises which showcased this kind of approximation and arrived at a similar conclusion, except I find that $Phi^-1(0.95) approx 1.65$ (eg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_normal_table). Am I reading the table wrong?
            – dom_miketa
            yesterday






          • 1




            Actually not. I did not went to the table the other day so I made a mistake. You're right. $Phi^{-1}(0.95)approx1.65$. It is $Phi^{-1}(0.975)$ that is $1.96$.
            – Alejandro Nasif Salum
            14 hours ago






          • 1




            That's everything sorted then. Thanks again and have a lovely holiday if you celebrate one. :)
            – dom_miketa
            11 hours ago
















          Thanks! I gave it another go today after a few more exercises which showcased this kind of approximation and arrived at a similar conclusion, except I find that $Phi^-1(0.95) approx 1.65$ (eg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_normal_table). Am I reading the table wrong?
          – dom_miketa
          yesterday




          Thanks! I gave it another go today after a few more exercises which showcased this kind of approximation and arrived at a similar conclusion, except I find that $Phi^-1(0.95) approx 1.65$ (eg en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_normal_table). Am I reading the table wrong?
          – dom_miketa
          yesterday




          1




          1




          Actually not. I did not went to the table the other day so I made a mistake. You're right. $Phi^{-1}(0.95)approx1.65$. It is $Phi^{-1}(0.975)$ that is $1.96$.
          – Alejandro Nasif Salum
          14 hours ago




          Actually not. I did not went to the table the other day so I made a mistake. You're right. $Phi^{-1}(0.95)approx1.65$. It is $Phi^{-1}(0.975)$ that is $1.96$.
          – Alejandro Nasif Salum
          14 hours ago




          1




          1




          That's everything sorted then. Thanks again and have a lovely holiday if you celebrate one. :)
          – dom_miketa
          11 hours ago




          That's everything sorted then. Thanks again and have a lovely holiday if you celebrate one. :)
          – dom_miketa
          11 hours ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3052317%2fimproving-on-chebyshevs-inequality-with-normal-approximation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Human spaceflight

          Image
          Human spaceflight From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Space traveler" redirects here. For other uses, see Space traveler (disambiguation). @media all and (max-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .tmulti>.thumbinner{width:100%!important;max-width:none!important}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .tsingle{float:none!important;max-width:none!important;width:100%!important;text-align:center}} Apollo 11 crewmember Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, 1969 International Space Station crewmember Tracy Caldwell Dyson views the Earth, 2010 Space Shuttle Discovery heads into space with a crew aboard, STS-121 in 2006 Inside a space suit on the Canadarm, 1993 Human spaceflight (also referred to as crewed spaceflight or manned spaceflight ) is space travel with a crew or passengers aboard the spacecraft. Spacecraft carrying people may be operated directly, by human crew, or it may be e
          Read more

          Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

          Image
          0 1 What exactly does the error message beginning with E: mean? I assume it has to do with the file structure on Ubuntu-on-Windows, but what exactly? The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required: os-prober Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove it. The following extra packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 The following NEW packages will be installed: libxslt1.1 xmlstarlet 0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 435 kB of archives. After this operation, 1023 kB of additional disk space will be used. Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/main libxslt1.1 amd64 1.1.28-2build1 [145 kB] Get:2 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty/universe xmlstarlet amd64 1.5.0-1 [290 kB]
          Read more

          File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg

          Image
          File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search File File history File usage No higher resolution available. DeusFollowingSea.jpg ‎ (238 × 211 pixels, file size: 12 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg ) Summary [ edit ] Media data and Non-free use rationale Description Cover art of the Deus CD Following Sea Author or copyright owner Deus Source (WP:NFCC#4) rocksucker.co.uk Date of publication 2012 Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) Following Sea Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8) to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question. Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1) n.a. Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) Low res image used in infobox of the article on the album Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2) n.a. Fair use Fair use of co
          Read more