confidence levels

confidence levels:

90% : 1,64
95% : 1,96
98% : 2,33
99% : 2,58

99.9% : ???

3.39?

dy/dx = ky, k = ???
fuck guys I thought you were smart

>>1
what would be the point, you're interval would end up being huge.

I am 100% confident that the true value lies within the range (-inf,+inf).

>>5
I am 100% confident that your contribution to this problem is worthless. So worthless, in fact, that taking the integral of your worth would just give C. And C would be zero.

>>3,
k = (dy/dx)/y ?

k=x

as always this board is fucking useless, unless >>2 is right

>>5 has the right idea, keep the guess as vague as possible, work further from being absolutely wrong until all sides are equal. GJ! And yes, >>9, we are completely fucking useless to people who are smart, you are truly a genius! GJ!

For 99.9%, about 3.2905
If you want the underlying math, you want the cumulative distribution function for the standard normal distribution, and solve for the value such that CDF(x) - CDF(-x) = 0.999.

here's one:

sample size: 16
standard deviation: 5
average: unkown
confidence interval: 4.35 <-> 9,65

question: what confidence level was used? or rather how do I calculate that?

ETHEREAL

Swift shimmering shadow steps silently; saddened, still softly severing serenities, slicing sympathy staggering sturdily; suffering sarcastic solace. Never noticing naïve naiads nor narrows nor necrotic nethers nestled nearby; naughty neutral nocturnal nexus nevertheless normally nostalgic notions; noteworthy nemesis neo neurotic neuralgia. Exceptional effervescing elemental ephemeral entity experiencing euphoria everlasting eternally eschew evermore, Ethereal

>>12
average would naturally be halfway between the two bounds of the confidence interval, so add those together and divide by two.  once you have that, you can solve for confidence level.

The bounds of a confidence interval for an average (arithmetic mean) are given by mean plus or minus Z*(standard deviation/square root of sample size).  You can take either bound of the confidence interval (4.35 using minus or 9.65 using plus) and solve for z.  So you could solve:  upper bound = mean + z*(standard deviation/square root of sample size) for z.  Now that you have z, you can figure out the corresponding area under the standard normal curve from -z to +z by whatever means at your disposal.  That area corresponds to the probability involved with the confidence interval.

Let's say that area was 0.95.  Then the confidence level would be 1 - 0.95 = 0.05.  (Note the terminology -- a 0.95 confidence interval is based upon the confidence level of 0.05.)

99.999999999999...% = 100%

>>15
feh to you

>>14
thank you very much
(sageing so that this shit doesn't bump)

>>17
lol bump

Hmm, how to increase confidence..., huh?

Well, how about trust? I heard it before, "Do you mean take on faith what people say is true?" Well, not exactly. I'm not talking about other people. I'm only referring to the person reading this message. Trust yourself. If you want to know what confidence is, it's the result of recurrent trust built from repeated and confirmed actions. But how does one go about trusting oneself?

Well, trust is often thought to be a way to take the pressure off of the other person when doing something new or first being introduced. Ok, that's half-right. What about the person reading this message? How would you trust yourself to swing a bat or golf club for the first time in your life? Would you swing without performing the step of self-trust? Well, one way of seeing trust is sort of cheating in a way. You see, trust is knowing what you are going to do before you do it. Now, seriously, how can anyone ever really know the outcome before they perform an action? Ok, if the action hasn't been performed before, how about trusting yourself to make mistakes? If you ask yourself how you feel about swing a bat or club for the first time and you feel doubt, anticipation, or hesitation you have the option now to perform the step of trusting yourself to make those first-time mistakes. This is just a small thing that will help you out over everything in the long-run, even with girls, finances, and your own self-exploration. Good luck.

Ok, perhaps using the word to define the word doesn't do it justice. Let's try another way then. If you tell yourself you are going to make mistakes, how do you feel? Do you feel let down? If so, why? Have you done this before? No. Then how can you think that you are going to be like Mark MacGwire or Tiger Woods from the first swing. It's a ridiculous notion that is rufuse and should be treated accordingly. So, if you haven't performed an action before, what can you expect? The swing won't look right. The grip won't feel right. The glove might be too big or loose or not on firmly. Your feet placement and leverage are most likely going to be off. If you have to speculate, leave the speculation open for improvement. Leave room for flexibilities and potential growth and involvement. <even this statement has potentially common usages in other areas. So, back to trust. When you resolve yourself to making mistakes for the first time and realize it's definitely not going to look right, you cease setting yourself up to fail before you begin and all the way through the practice and other areas as well. If you trust yourself enough to say, "Hey, maybe this might work." Test it out knowing your going to make mistakes especially if you haven't done it before. This taking trust to a whole new level. Turning an believed or known absolute like trust and turning it to your advantage. I hope that clarifies it for you. Best of luck in your pursuits.

confidence intervals are bullshit.

Credible sets are where it's at

use calculus

use hands to pull head out ass, wash, rinse and dry when finished, then GTFO< or >STFU.

>>23
i think he shuld use calclus

>>24
Teach me.