Mathematics desk
< August 24	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 25

Reliability, validity, but what is more specific

I got interested in the impact that chance, contingent factors, etc. can have on student grades. I reduced my doubts to limit cases in which either an impossible question is added to an exam, or a giveaway question is added. I was surprised to discover that for good students a free question does not make up for an impossible question.

I then made a more thorough study to try to discover how many questions would needed to reduce the effect of the impossible or give-away question to having no important influence. Following that I devised a way of computing how "luck of the draw" would influence a student's grades if the sample size was very small. The method I developed is a simple application of probability theory, but as I have done it the process involves a great deal of computation.

Working the whole thing out would probably not be as much work as calculating a table of trig functions, but I am hopeful that somebody has already done the work or attacked the problem in some mathematically more efficient way. I have posted an explanation in more detail, and a spreadsheet based on a limited sample size used to evaluate spelling competence for a year's work, i.e., a vocabulary list of several hundred words.

http://www.china-learn.info/MathConcepts.xhtml

Can anybody point me at other work on this level? I am aware that work has been done on the subjects of "reliability" and "validity," but the math seems much more intense, and the preparatory work would be much more arduous. I am looking for materials that could easily be understood by secondary school teachers who may think that ten spelling words on a final exam will give all students fair grades.

Thanks.P0M (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

does requiring exactly one digit reduce or increase entropy?

Assuming an 8-character password that is either

1) all lower-case letters (e.g. fjwkdosj, or jefokds)

2) all lower-case letters, but one single digit in one place (e.g. fjds4sds)

which ruile has higher entropy? This is not homework. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the number of possibilities, it's 26⁸ in the first case and 26⁷(10)(8) in the later case, assuming that the digit can be in any position, which means a tad more than 3 times as many possibilities, using a single digit. See if you can figure out entropy from there. StuRat (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dirichlet kernel

Show that ${\frac {1}{2}}\int _{0}^{x}\left({\frac {\sin((N+1/2)t)}{\sin(t/2)}}-1\right)dt$ is uniformly bounded in $N$ and $x\in [-\pi ,\pi ]$ using the fact that $\int _{0}^{\infty }{\frac {\sin t}{t}}dt<\infty$ .

Obviously the strategy is to manipulate the first expression into $\int _{0}^{\infty }{\frac {\sin t}{t}}dt$ or something similar.

So, ${\frac {1}{2}}\int _{0}^{x}\left({\frac {\sin(Nt)\cos(t/2)+\cos(Nt)\sin(t/2)}{\sin(t/2)}}-1\right)dt$

$={\frac {1}{2}}\int _{0}^{x}\left({\frac {\sin(Nt)\cos(t/2)}{\sin(t/2)}}+\cos(Nt)-1\right)dt$

$={\frac {1}{2}}\int _{0}^{x}\left({\frac {\sin(Nt)\cos(t/2)}{\sin(t/2)}}+\cos(Nt)-1\right)dt$

Widener (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
$\int _{0}^{x}(\cos(Nt)-1)dt$ is uniformly bounded in N and $x\in [-\pi ,\pi ]$ at least. Widener (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't going to help. The first thing you need to observe is that

\int _{0}^{\infty }\sin t{\frac {dt}{t}}=\int _{0}^{\infty }\sin(N+1/2)t\,{\frac {dt}{t}}

. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are they equal? Widener (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dt/t is the multiplicative Haar measure for the group

\mathbb {R} _{+}

(or just do a substitution). Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manifolds and implicit function theorem

Am I correct in saying that a surface is a manifold if, at every point on the surface, there exists a coordinate that can locally be written as a function of the others? Widener (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean a smooth manifold and smooth function. If so, the answer is "yes" (by the implicit function theorem). Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand... the Euclidean plane is a smooth manifold, but its coordinates aren't locally degenerate. --Tango (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here I'm assuming that the question is specifically about surfaces in

\mathbb {R} ^{3}

, in which case the Euclidean plane is just

z=0

. (Of course, there are surfaces that cannot be realized as manifolds in

\mathbb {R} ^{3}

, but I don't think that's what the question was about.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't realise we were talking about an embedding of a surface. The question and answer make far more sense now! Thanks. --Tango (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]